Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Bush didn't cave and the elections went well. Preliminary reports say 72% turnout.

What you posted says 60%, if that's even to be believed.

I quote from the article:

"Officials had earlier claimed a turnout of 72% but the commission backtracked and said it had only been an estimate."

Obvious they updated it from when I saw it this AM.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Gee, yesterday too little, and today too much. And tomorrow will be another day liberals lose another election, and another, and another.

because spending $40 million on a gala for lobbyists is "celebrating democracy"

Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime

Mon Jan 17, 6:58 PM ET

Politics - Reuters

Funny, Clinton spent 25% more on his second inaugural bash than did Bush. But then again that was liberal greenbacks, which smells much sweeter than does big oil bucks from neocons. 8)

Clinton's second inaugural cost about $32 million - which is not 25 percent more than $40 million.
But, simple math aside, why do you keep comparing Bush to Clinton.
I thought you hated Clinton. Why is he now the guy you compare everything to?????

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Well, much of the credit for the successful election in Iraq must go to John Kerry for his firm resolve and deft leadership. Also, without the great support from Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats in Congress, Kerry could never have pulled off this effort to see democracy succeed in Iraq.

Thanks for making it partisan, Mark.
But that being said, I am glad Kerry and Kennedy did such a great job.
Now those 150,000 US troops, that aren't from Iraq, can come home, right?

The real trouble in Iraq has barely started. Does anyone (other than the neocons, of course) honestly believe that the Shiites are going to forget what the Sunnis have done to them for the last 47 years?

Expect a Rwanda-style bloodbath - real soon.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

The real trouble in Iraq has barely started. Does anyone (other than the neocons, of course) honestly believe that the Shiites are going to forget what the Sunnis have done to them for the last 47 years?

Expect a Rwanda-style bloodbath - real soon.

Rather like the bloodbath Americans can expect if and when we ever lose a 4T war, at the hands of those who will likewise never forget their many grievances against us, whether real or imagined?

BTW, Shiite grievances against Sunnis go back a LOT further than 47 years - more like 13 centuries.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

The real trouble in Iraq has barely started. Does anyone (other than the neocons, of course) honestly believe that the Shiites are going to forget what the Sunnis have done to them for the last 47 years?

Expect a Rwanda-style bloodbath - real soon.

The Iraqis are too sophisticated to make that mistake. I'll bet on a lot of small but important things, like who gets the electricity and water. Fallujah and Ramallah are about to get ignored, except at tax time.

... and by refusing to join the 'process', the Sunnis will play right into it.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Well, much of the credit for the successful election in Iraq must go to John Kerry for his firm resolve and deft leadership. Also, without the great support from Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats in Congress, Kerry could never have pulled off this effort to see democracy succeed in Iraq.

Thanks for making it partisan, Mark.
But that being said, I am glad Kerry and Kennedy did such a great job.
Now those 150,000 US troops, that aren't from Iraq, can come home, right?

That would be nice, but given what happened last time around, I don't know.

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror


by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. ?2)


WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised? and
heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's pr?esidential
election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt th?e voting.


According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 mi?llion
registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of the?m risked
reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.


The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietco?ng to
destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in? a
preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the i?ncomplete
returns reaching here.

Here it is in full

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.

[quote="NickSmoliga"]http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050128-083216-1353r

The Washington Times |www.washingtontimes.com

Fourth estate or fifth column? | By Thomas Sowell | Published January 29, 2005

There are still people in the mainstream media who profess bewilderment they are accused of bias. But you need look no further than reporting on the war in Iraq to see the bias staring you in the face, day after day, on the Page One of the New York Times and in much of the rest of the media. If a battle ends with Americans killing 100 guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining 10 fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten more Americans killed in Iraq today." This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat in print or on TV. Kept up long enough, it can even end up in real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.

First of all, the American people only care about how many Americans are killed, so the "media" is only reporting what Americans want to hear.

Second, how meaningful is it that n enemies were killed? There's plenty more where that came from. If it were reported like you'd like then it would be like the Vietnam body counts where it was clear the US was winning...except we weren't. So which way is more misleading?

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Here it is in full

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

Is this NYT story something you got off the internet, or did you make a trip to your local library archive?

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

But you need look no further than reporting on the war in Iraq to see the bias staring you in the face, day after day, on the Page One of the New York Times and in much of the rest of the media. If a battle ends with Americans killing 100 guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining 10 fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten more Americans killed in Iraq today." This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat in print or on TV. Kept up long enough, it can even end up in real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.

To be a Bush propaganda whore, or not to be a Bush propaganda whore: That is the $200 billion question!
Look, if the President needs to buy journalists to spread his agenda - then there is obviously something wrong. If there is so much bad news the right wingers have to blame the messenger, then something has gone wrong.
If only Bush could pay the New York Times off. Then all of his problems would go away!

So you're saying that reporting accurately on a battle instead of running out a paper with a headline like "10 Americans Killed" is whoring for the President?

Come on Chris. The issue is press independence v. official propaganda. Propaganda can be accurate and independent press reports, false, but the fact that the focus of the news is also the source of the news is very unsettling to say the least.

If you support repression, you'll soon find that only the 'official' version of the news is available. Ask a Russian what it was like when TASS was an arm of the government.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Here it is in full

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

Is this NYT story something you got off the internet, or did you make a trip to your local library archive?

It took me all of 5 minute to find a corroborating source - from an article critical of the Times written in 1998.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

Is this NYT story something you got off the internet, or did you make a trip to your local library archive?

It took me all of 5 minute to find a corroborating source - from an article critical of the Times written in 1998.

I had goggled some of the text, but found zilch. So, I was merely curious as to the poster's newspaper research and typing skills, and sheer determination.

However, I found myself snickering just a tad at your implied notion that the mainstream media is in cahoots with the Bush folks on this election (as they had apparently been with Johnson circa 1967).

But I'm not at all surprised you would think that they are. :lol:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

Is this NYT story something you got off the internet, or did you make a trip to your local library archive?

It took me all of 5 minute to find a corroborating source - from an article critical of the Times written in 1998.

I had goggled some of the text, but found zilch. So, I was merely curious as to the poster's newspaper research and typing skills, and sheer determination.

However, I found myself snickering just a tad at your implied notion that the mainstream media is in cahoots with the Bush folks on this election (as they had apparently been with Johnson circa 1967).

But I'm not at all surprised you would think that they are. :lol:

I think the Times is ambivalent. The paper is internationalist and pro-Democrat. That fits well with 1967 pro-Vietnamization. It also fits well with the corporatist nature of all media today, but I doubt they will make any grand-seeping pronouncements either for or against. It's one thing to be proven wrong a year later, and quite another thing to be egg-faced in a matter of weeks. It's better to say nothing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think the Times is ambivalent. The paper is internationalist and pro-Democrat. That fits well with 1967 pro-Vietnamization. It also fits well with the corporatist nature of all media today, but I doubt they will make any grand-seeping pronouncements either for or against. It's one thing to be proven wrong a year later, and quite another thing to be egg-faced in a matter of weeks. It's better to say nothing.

The Times is based in New York City, one of the most liberal cities in America. It should surprise very few which way it slants and it doesn't have to defend itself for writing in the accepted outlook of its readers.
The foundation of the American press is to be critical of government policy.
Read about John Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, whose criticism of then New York Colony Governor William Cosby got him in trouble for publishing "seditious libels."

If Ann Coulter was alive back then, there's no question whose side she'd be on. It baffles me why some feel threatened by freedom and liberty.

Here's an argument that explains why a timetable for US withdrawal (which I don't think would happen if Allawi's faction wins the election) is a good idea:

Originally Posted by upyernoz

this morning i heard senator russ feingold and representative ileana ros-lehtinen debate whether the u.s. should set a timetable for pulling out of iraq. ros-lehtinen repeated the bush administration's usual refrain that a timetable is an "artificial deadline" that would only embolden terrorists.

the more i think about that argument, the less sense it makes. it is the open-ended nature of this mission that encourages the insurgency in iraq. you can only get people to risk their lives to fight to end the u.s.' military occupation if they do not believe the occupation will end on its own.

besides, what will happen when u.s. forces do pull out? unless there is a pre-publicized timetable for leaving, whenever the u.s. leaves, anti-american forces (whether the present insurgency or their successors) will claim that they caused the u.s. to leave and claim victory.

that's exactly what happened with israel in lebanon. for more than 15 years israel occupied a portion of southern lebanon, rebuffing repeated calls from the international community for a timetable for its withdrawal. in the late 1990s, israel's continued presence in lebanon became increasingly untenable and it decided to withdraw unilaterally. the decision was based on a number of different factors, both foreign and domestic, but because the move was not pursuant to an independently established timetable, hezbollah claimed credit for the withdrawal. the pullout is now remembered in lebanon and much of the arab world as an israeli retreat from hezbollah, which makes hezbollah the only arab forces who can claim victory over the israelis. simply put, it was not having a pre-existing timetable that emboldened the terrorists in lebanon. indeed, it made them heroes in the eyes of many.

almost everyone believes that u.s. forces will leave iraq someday. but if they leave without a clear pre-existing timetable, we are setting up the insurgency for the same P.R. coup that hezbollah got out of the israeli withdrawal from lebanon.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think the Times is ambivalent. The paper is internationalist and pro-Democrat. That fits well with 1967 pro-Vietnamization. It also fits well with the corporatist nature of all media today, but I doubt they will make any grand-sweeping pronouncements either for or against. It's one thing to be proven wrong a year later, and quite another thing to be egg-faced in a matter of weeks. It's better to say nothing.

The Times is based in New York City, one of the most liberal cities in America. It should surprise very few which way it slants and it doesn't have to defend itself for writing in the accepted outlook of its readers.
The foundation of the American press is to be critical of government policy.
Read about John Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, whose criticism of then New York Colony Governor William Cosby got him in trouble for publishing "seditious libels."

If Ann Coulter was alive back then, there's no question whose side she'd be on. It baffles me why some feel threatened by freedom and liberty.

I don't see the press as all that vital, at the moment. Show me any part of the mainstream media that actually tries to slay dragons. I can see none. At best they report the news, and editorialize in a bland and uninspiring manner. For instance, what is the Times saying about the Iraqi election? I see some Op-Ed stuff and a news report (above the fold).

In 1967, the paper gushed about Vietnam elections, which turned-out to be much less than met the eye. I don't expect the Times to take a stand this time.

Now, for lack of a better name, the Alternate Iconclastic Media are not so docile. The NYTimes and WashPost should never become liberal equivalents, but it's easy enough to see why the Right is strutting around acting like they've conquered the world. For now - they have.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In 1967, the [New York Times] paper gushed about Vietnam elections, which turned-out to be much less than met the eye. I don't expect the Times to take a stand this time.

One should note that the Vietnam elections story, according to the one who posted it, appeared on page 2. Would it be safe to say that this means that story was in the back seat (to other things considered far more important), compared to the endless parade on today's Iraqi election stories?

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to spend a few minutes with an Army veteran (1964-1966), of whom I have no idea where he stood politically (and still don't). He served stateside during his tour of duty, but I pointedly asked him if he recalled his own feeling at the time Johnson ramped up troop levels in 1965. He actually told me that it was no big deal and that no one thought much about it at all.

This veteran's recall of the "ambivalence" back then, along the lines of the NYT (page 2) election story, tells me that forty years have served to escalate the memory of Vietnam into something far more and far different than what it really was. The Vietnam story can only be understood in the aftermath of the victorious glow of WW II, while the successful Iraqi elections can only be told in the aftermath of the defeatist "quagmire" that Vietnam has become.

I would conclude that that quagmire, and all those who preach her glorious failure, like Kerry and Kennedy, has been finally laid to rest. America is back! And those who have come to hate her have been duly silenced by millions of raised purple fingers.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think the Times is ambivalent. The paper is internationalist and pro-Democrat. That fits well with 1967 pro-Vietnamization. It also fits well with the corporatist nature of all media today, but I doubt they will make any grand-sweeping pronouncements either for or against. It's one thing to be proven wrong a year later, and quite another thing to be egg-faced in a matter of weeks. It's better to say nothing.

The Times is based in New York City, one of the most liberal cities in America. It should surprise very few which way it slants and it doesn't have to defend itself for writing in the accepted outlook of its readers.
The foundation of the American press is to be critical of government policy.
Read about John Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, whose criticism of then New York Colony Governor William Cosby got him in trouble for publishing "seditious libels."

If Ann Coulter was alive back then, there's no question whose side she'd be on. It baffles me why some feel threatened by freedom and liberty.

I don't see the press as all that vital, at the moment. Show me any part of the mainstream media that actually tries to slay dragons. I can see none. At best they report the news, and editorialize in a bland and uninspiring manner. For instance, what is the Times saying about the Iraqi election? I see some Op-Ed stuff and a news report (above the fold).

In 1967, the paper gushed about Vietnam elections, which turned-out to be much less than met the eye. I don't expect the Times to take a stand this time.

Now, for lack of a better name, the Alternate Iconclastic Media are not so docile. The NYTimes and WashPost should never become liberal equivalents, but it's easy enough to see why the Right is strutting around acting like they've conquered the world. For now - they have.

CNN, New York Times, and Washington Post areold school liberal outlets.
Don't expect anything new out of them. Keep your eyes on the bloggers like myDD.com, and dailykos.com. A lot of "news" winds up there days before it hits the mainstream press.
They are also getting powerful. The WSJ tried to take themout with a story a few weeks ago that backfired in the journal's face.
Us Reform dems are slippery fellows

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at here. Blue seemed to be suggesting that a news outlet that reports factually on the war is merely propagandizing for President Bush. I asked for clarification on that point to see if that's what he really meant.

It's a very fine line between being a propaganda whore and being semi-objective. It comes down to action verbs and adjectives. No matter what, somebody will accuse you of bias. personally I think the shock value of American soldiers dead is kind of a tired, substanceless way of covering the war, but I also am aware that ANY bad news from media is construed as liberal bias by the right wing extremists.

This isn't really an issue of press independence versus official propaganda, it's an issue of news outlets that are --singly or in combination-- incompetent, partisan, or hostile to the United States. There will always be stupidity and incompetence. The partisan and anti-American outlets, aren't reporting accurately on events in Iraq because (as Blue seemed to suggest) accurate reporting would make the news outlets look as if they were cheerleading for President Bush specifically, or the Americans more generally.

If you are a journalist, you are going to laugh extra hard at all of Bush's Bushisms because you are used to covering high school principals that are more eloquent. Furthermore most journalists are poorly paid, and resent being run by energy titans. Also, this administration has been pretty hostile to the press. They prohibited certain coverage (like the photos of coffins) and they hold veryfew press conferences.
These are the guys who called Adam Clymer from NYT a "big time asshole" in 2000. Why should he think any different of them?

Imagine that the New York Times started to report on what's actually going happening over there -- talking about the schools that are being built, the medical personnel who've been trained, the medical supplies that have been delivered, the power transmission equipment that has been set up, the wells that have been dug, and so on. How quickly would The Daily Kos (and hence Blue, who seems to be Kos's mouthpiece here) jump all over them for spouting Bush-lovin' propaganda?

I have seen those stories.
But just remember Pfc. Lynch, the heroic soldier who was wraped, stabbed, broken and fought her way out of an Iraqi hospital...until much of her story was proven false.
This is an administration that pays pundits to promote its agenda.
A good journalist should be encouraged not to operate as their "mouthpiece."

That pisses me off, because I know people who've bled doing things like that. And they become nothing more than statistics in the anti-Bush drumbeat. (And people wonder why the Dems have lost the military...)

That's just the media, man. When my friends shutdown the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999, all we heard about were anarchists trashing Starbucks.
The corporate media sidestepped the issue. Tom Brokaw was positively at a loss to explain this strange thing that had happened.
They like the blood and bombs. Schools are boring. zzzzzz
I want to make one more thing clear to you - any criticism of the war has never been against the soldiers. I have many friends that are now marines. I care about their lives. I don't want to see my old drinking buds coming home in bodybags without very, very good cause.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In 1967, the [New York Times] paper gushed about Vietnam elections, which turned-out to be much less than met the eye. I don't expect the Times to take a stand this time.

One should note that the Vietnam elections story, according to the one who posted it, appeared on page 2. Would it be safe to say that this means that story was in the back seat (to other things considered far more important), compared to the endless parade on today's Iraqi election stories?

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to spend a few minutes with an Army veteran (1964-1966), of whom I have no idea where he stood politically (and still don't). He served stateside during his tour of duty, but I pointedly asked him if he recalled his own feeling at the time Johnson ramped up troop levels in 1965. He actually told me that it was no big deal and that no one thought much about it at all.

This veteran's recall of the "ambivalence" back then, along the lines of the NYT (page 2) election story, tells me that forty years have served to escalate the memory of Vietnam into something far more and far different than what it really was. The Vietnam story can only be understood in the aftermath of the victorious glow of WW II, while the successful Iraqi elections can only be told in the aftermath of the defeatist "quagmire" that Vietnam has become.

I would conclude that that quagmire, and all those who preach her glorious failure, like Kerry and Kennedy, has been finally laid to rest. America is back! And those who have come to hate her have been duly silenced by millions of raised purple fingers.

Since you don't know sh!t from Shinola (TM) on this subject, you may prefer to demur.



My period of service was 1966-70. In '66, we all were a bit concerned about the war, but it was no big deal. That was the general attitude until Tet of '68. After that, it all turned around. I was outside the US at the time, adn still managed to be aware of this shift. It was tectonic.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

...talking about the schools that are being built

..replacing the ones the US blew up.

the medical personnel who've been trained

..some to replace the ones we've killed, most to address the ever-increasing demand we've created for their services.

the medical supplies that have been delivered

...got quite a backlog to make up for, after embargoing that sort of stuff out of Iraq for a decade, plus, see that 'ever-increasing demand' part.

the power transmission equipment that has been set up, the wells that have been dug.

See above, 'schools being built'. Say, has power generation reached pre-invasion levels yet? 90% of pre-invasion? Water treatment back up to the best-in-the-region standard Iraq enjoyed before US bombs started falling? Cholera fallen below 'epidemic' level (a relatively new quality-of-life complaint for Iraqis, but still valid)? Hello? anybody there??...

Damn liberal bias, always focusing on the US breaking stuff, instead of the half-ass repairs they make to the stuff they've broken....

Well, its better than leaving them destroyed, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

So you're saying that reporting accurately on a battle instead of running out a paper with a headline like "10 Americans Killed" is whoring for the President?

Come on Chris. The issue is press independence v. official propaganda. Propaganda can be accurate and independent press reports, false, but the fact that the focus of the news is also the source of the news is very unsettling to say the least.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at here. Blue seemed to be suggesting that a news outlet that reports factually on the war is merely propagandizing for President Bush. I asked for clarification on that point to see if that's what he really meant.

I think the problem is 'journalism for pay', which is getting to be a bigger Bush problem all the time. I was actually OK with the imbedded journalists, but I'm not OK with journalists on Uncle Sam's payroll.

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

This isn't really an issue of press independence versus official propaganda, it's an issue of news outlets that are --singly or in combination-- incompetent, partisan, or hostile to the United States. There will always be stupidity and incompetence. The partisan and anti-American outlets, aren't reporting accurately on events in Iraq because (as Blue seemed to suggest) accurate reporting would make the news outlets look as if they were cheerleading for President Bush specifically, or the Americans more generally.

Stupidity and incompetence are not unique to any one group, and being anti-Bush is not the same as being anti-American.

If you remember, too much cheerleading from the Right-Wing Media helped to create the atmosphere that allowed the Iraq War to proceed without ANY critical review.

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

Imagine that the New York Times started to report on what's actually going happening over there -- talking about the schools that are being built, the medical personnel who've been trained, the medical supplies that have been delivered, the power transmission equipment that has been set up, the wells that have been dug, and so on. How quickly would The Daily Kos (and hence Blue, who seems to be Kos's mouthpiece here) jump all over them for spouting Bush-lovin' propaganda?

That pisses me off, because I know people who've bled doing things like that. And they become nothing more than statistics in the anti-Bush drumbeat. (And people wonder why the Dems have lost the military...)

I dare say that more stories of that type are broadcasrt on the NPR network than the EIB network, and I don't hear the Left screaming about it at all.

Here's a typical story on NPR, from one who was there from the beginning.

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

Originally Posted by then, M & L

If you support repression, you'll soon find that only the 'official' version of the news is available. Ask a Russian what it was like when TASS was an arm of the government.

I'm on lunch right now, and I don't have the time to get into the implications of all of this. This is important enough that I want to get back to it later.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... Damn liberal bias, always focusing on the US breaking stuff, instead of the half-ass repairs they make to the stuff they've broken....

OK. And they think I'm cynical.