Sounds like Randi Rhodes' Brother/sister (same difference.)

Actually, why don't you respond to the substance of what he said?

For the same reason I don't respond to people who say that space aliens live among us.

Godless: What substance? There ain't none. That's the problem with you folks.

What substance?

I can't speak for others, but I'm glad that, for a change, we're doing things that hurt our 'reputation' and 'foreign policy' as opposed to hurting our citizens (by having buildings toppled on them, for example), economy, infrastructure, etc.

And, since I haven't had the opportunity to present it yet, I'd offer this: Our World Cup team in Germany has to go everywhere 'undercover' because their lives are threatened. Does anyone, even for a moment, think that sports teams, even from the middle east or socialist south american countries, would need to fear for their lives from US citizens if the Cup were being held in America? Why should we care how our 'reputation' is viewed by people that would blow up our soccer team? It's bad enough that we have to defend ourselves from psycho regimes, but now we're being told we have to defend ourselves for defending ourselves.

Fine. I'll do so:

Right wing bloggers are licking their chops at the prospect of Dan Rathering TIME Magazine over the Haditha story. As a back-up, some of the chickenhawk defense patrol are preparing to Swiftboat John Murtha, just in case. Murtha apparently could be called as a witness if and when a Haditha case goes to trial.

I, for one, hope that the Haditha story does turn out to be mistaken (and the righties have raised legitimate questions about the early reporting of the incident at Haditha, and no less a light than Paul Hackett has made a compelling case that Kilo Company took small arms fire after the IED blast that killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, and of course, it is entirely possible that the death scene was faked to implicate the Marines.) In fact, I hope that no more members of the United States military wind up in prison (and crushing legal debt) for carrying out orders by officers who will themselves never face justice, or even tough scrutiny, for their orders, or civilian defense leaders whose sick affection for torture, secret detentions and disturbed interrogation methods has led to this war's disturbing decline into depravity and Saddam-worthy cruelty. Prosecute the civilians in the Pentagon first, and then we'll talk.

Note: The stories that are LIES do not ACTUALLY implicate leadership in anything. He is saying we should indict the Pentagon people --- and the only reason he has, honestly, is that he doesn't like them.

And "Saddam-worthy cruelty"? The only people who think that are clueless as to what Saddam did.

We put panties on heads. He CUT HANDS OFF and INTENTIONALLY BROKE BACKS. Small difference in treatment.

I won't read his other posts, but based on this, I have little hope that the rest is even remotely intellectually factual or stimulating.

And that Marine calling himself. Darn him for trying to protect himself! Shame that Murtha had to smear him publicly.

That said, I am more than sick of the right wing blogosphere and its chickenhawk radio companions' zeal to "take down" members of the supposedly liberal mainstream media for having the temerity to every so often do actual reporting, rather than Patriotically Parroting the Talking Points of Barron von Rumsfeld and the Dear Leader.

Considering that they have this nasty habit of either leaking classified info or misreporting (and I'd buy it was accidental if, well, the misreporting didn't ALWAYS go AGAINST Bush. That doesn't seem all that accidental to me).

Get off it, righties. You aren't at war with the media. They are, in large part, more than willing to do the president's bidding. You are at war with your own consciences, for supporting a man so clearly inadequate for the job as president that he makes a mockery of the office, and for supporting a war so clearly ruinous to the foreign policy and good name of the United States that it makes a mockery of war.

Just attempt to compare the coverage of, say, the economy under Bush and the economy under Clinton.

The economic figures during the term of Treasury Sec. Rubin and Treas. Sec. Snow were IDENTICAL. The coverage of the economy was markedly more downcast under Snow. The press had no problem with Clinton going into Bosnia without even once talking to the UN about it was fine and dandy, but Bush going to Iraq without UN approval is "illegal".

I love that the insepid belief that business will support Republicans and, thus, are biaed towards Republicans is true --- but reporters voting Democrat by ridiculously large numbers doesn't mean they might, possibly, skew their reporting (even though they clearly did).
-=Mike

What did the U.S. (Clinton Admin.) do in response to the attacks on U.S. interests and citizens prior to 9/11? What did that get us? 9/11 that's what. Keep your head in the sand a bit longer, maybe the Islamo Nutbags won't cut it off.
Another thing, in Soccer, what country's players are safe? Seems to me every team not from Germany are in danger.

Weeee! Weeee! Weeee!

Posted by: Godless Liberal at June 15, 2006 03:53 PM

NOW THIS is a guy with a future. We should encourage him to run for office. The more the American people see of this "Human of superior Humainty" the better!
You run girl!!

Perhaps Reid was a victim of the motto on his own blog, "Think at your own risk," so he just emotes rather than ponders.

.

Godless liberal,
Great posting name to validate Ann Coulter's book.

I can't imagine being a leftie wishing for defeat and other bad things to happen to his/her own country. Good things for America are a distress for these folks. How can you get up every morning?

LAI - not only that, but it must be really painful to be a liberal and see everything through the lens of Watergate and Vietnam. Every political act is a potential Watergate. Every foreign venture is not just a potential Vietnam, but a Vietnam-in-the-making.

There is no other template to them. Unless, of course, THEY are the ones in charge. Then everything is CAMELOT!!!!

"He is saying we should indict the Pentagon people --- and the only reason he has, honestly, is that he doesn't like them."

I think that a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric tends to be similar. He isn't wrong because he's wrong, he's wrong because they don't like him. The economy doesn't suck because it sucks (it's actually pretty darned good, ATM) it sucks because Bush is a dick. The war isn't illegal because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's important to oppose war.

I honestly don't know how anyone could claim that the MSM is biased FOR Bush. The claim that the media is Bush's lap-dog might well be a good diagnostic tool for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Because anything that doesn't line up with the FACT that Bush sucks, the war is a disaster, the world is a disaster because of Bush, the economy sucks, theocracy is just around the corner, and Bush wants to put gays in concentration camps... well, that's just denying the truth, repeating the lies. So if the media tacks a "while three more people were killed in Baghdad" to any story that could *possibly* be seen as showing progress in Iraq, it STILL means that the MSM does Bush's bidding.

I do think that it's possible for someone to dislike Bush and oppose the war without suffering Bush Derangment Syndrome, but there is no doubt whatsoever that BDS is a real and prevalent affliction.

lakestate:
"What did the U.S. (Clinton Admin.) do in response to the attacks on U.S. interests and citizens prior to 9/11? What did that get us? 9/11 that's what. Keep your head in the sand a bit longer, maybe the Islamo Nutbags won't cut it off."

Ummm...to whom was this directed? And if the answer is me (as it seems to be), please reread my comment before reinserting your foot in your mouth.

Lakestate' please remove foot from mouth when instructed..."

Some lefties hate America because they essentially hate themselves. They are losers, and they can't possibly imagine themselves a part of something great and successful like the U.S.

It self-loathing that causes a lot of this. They don't feel worthy of winning a war against 3rd world terrorists (for all the evil the U.S. has created (!) in the world).

It is a sign of mental disorder in some. Not all. Some of the others mean well, and are patriotic. I'm talking DU and Kos Kidz.

"we are winning the war on terroism"

What do you mean we?

Don't you just sit around on your ass all day behind a keyboard?

tde, stop projecting.

tde, I had an opportunity to spend 17 months working with native troops "over there". We,excluding Kommiecrats and liberals,are winning the war.

I definetly felt safer alone on the fabled Silk Road then in CentrelPark. Or detroit. Or cleveland,DC etc...

Sounds like my mother. She thinks CNN is too conservative.

Rejoice, we, the good guys, are winning! Why are the liberals so stressed and upset?

Al Qaeda In Iraq Died For Our Sins

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been virtually wiped out by the loss of an address book. The death of al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi was not as important as the capture of his address book and other planning documents in the wake of the June 7th bombing.

Nearly a thousand terrorist suspects have been killed or captured. The amount of information captured has overwhelmed intelligence organizations in Iraq, and more translators and analysts are assisting, via satellite link, from the United States and other locations.

"Fight that battle first and then we'll talk"? See, the last two elections was when we "talked" to you.

Sorry, we won so I guess that's the end of conversation.

You are SO right, the media is COMPLETELY dominated by liberals. Just ask the following people:

Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, Rich Lowry, Bill O'Reilly, William Safire, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, John Gibson, Michelle Malkin, David Brooks, Tony Snow, Tony Blankely, Fred Barnes, Britt Hume, Larry Kudlow, Sean Hannity, David Horowitz, William Kristol, Hugh Hewitt, Oliver North, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, John McLaughlin, Cal Thomas, Joe Klein, James Kilpatrick, Tucker Carlson, Deroy Murdock, Michael Savage, Charles Krauthammer, Stephen Moore, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Mort Kondracke, Andrew Sullivan, Nicholas von Hoffman, Neil Cavuto, Matt Drudge, Mike Rosen, Dave Kopel, or John Caldara.

(Names via this letter to the editor, reprinted at the Neil Rogers Show. I make the citation because, unlike Ann Coulter, I'm not a plagiarist.)

And of course, the ultra-liberal media has succesfully kept the GOP from achieving a Congressional majority during the last twelve years and taking the White House eighteen out of the last twenty-six years, helping to usher in an uninterrupted reign of radical Leftism.

You're hysterical. You should do stand-up.

Gideon S. spewed @ June 16, 2006 07:07 PM

You are SO right, the media is COMPLETELY dominated by liberals. Just ask the following people:

SNIP! Wow, you provided 40 names of the only conservative/liberatarian type of commentators/reporters/editorialists, and you couldn't even think them up yourself.

Of course, I can provide 3 names of the liberal bent for every one of your names provided, but I won't waste the space.

You're hysterical. You should do stand-up.

I would say your blog is hysterical, but it really tragic the level of delusion you exist under. Keep your day job, assuming you have one.

So proof of a liberal media would be if they "succesfully kept the GOP from achieving a Congressional majority during the last twelve years and taking the White House eighteen out of the last twenty-six years, helping to usher in an uninterrupted reign of radical Leftism."????

So, like, liberals don't even pretend to adhere to journalistic objectivity? Since, if journalists *were* liberal they'd have managed to do what you said, Gideon? Sheesh.

Journalism schools are full of rational people who just happen to have a predominately liberal world view. That they aren't actively fighting the good fight against the evil GOP hardly proves that they aren't liberal or the field is not dominated by liberals.

Or is it that "dominated" thing... it just means there are way more of them, Gideon. It doesn't mean that someone is claiming they've got the entire industry tied up in leather and chains and spend all their time beating it.

People see the world through the prism of what they believe and that includes journalists who think they are being objective.

So old Cut and Run Hanoi John was going to introduce a bill in the Senate to force the troops to cut and run by Dec 06. Someone got ahead of him and introduced it and forced a vote. The senate handed Hanoi his head and not to politely. 96 to 3. Has there ever been a bill that lost that big, or won if you're an american patroit and really support the troops?

Ditto in the House, Plastic face Peloshi is still trying to figure out what to do with her head after it was handed to her in a massive defeat of her cut and run bill. Don't worry, there's so much plastice in it there was no blood.

I see Ann Coulter stirred up the hornets nest again. She told the truth about how fragging came about in Vietnam. Dumb officers that tried to lead and didn't know how got people killed, their friends took care of it without a trial. Murtha definetly would be fragged in Vietnam with the traitors attitude he has today. He wouldn't have lasted one night. Evidently this Anti-american, traitorous attitude either came after close association with the dim-wits or senility.

Gideon S. Most of the people you listed are columnists/opinion-makers. They are not reporters. Big difference.

When we talk about liberal media, we're talking about NBC, CBS, ABC, New York Slimes, LA Times, Wash Post, USA Today, Newsweek, Time, etc, etc.

And if Andrew Sullivan is a conservative then I'm Mickey Mouse.

I'd list all of the liberal folks in the MSM, but I worry it might crash the servers for Wizbang.

I will say that reporters vote overwhelmingly Democratic and label themselves as liberal twice as often as the public at large.

But that's just because they're diabolical Rovians, I imagine.
-=Mike

Big MO said:

Gideon S. Most of the people you listed are columnists/opinion-makers. They are not reporters. Big difference.

So they don't have a responsibility to adhere to the facts? Or to behave in a civil manner?

When we talk about liberal media, we're talking about NBC, CBS, ABC, New York Slimes, LA Times, Wash Post, USA Today, Newsweek, Time, etc, etc.

The so-called liberalism of the aforementioned groups is easily disproven on a daily basis; all one has to do is read and watch carefully.

And if Andrew Sullivan is a conservative then I'm Mickey Mouse.

Well you must look lovely in red shorts, then. Just because Sullivan isn't as Republican as you'd like him to be doesn't mean he's not a GOP adherent at the end of the day.

"DavidB," I see a lot of personal attacks and high-falutin' claims, but not facts. Or even an attempt at elementary logic. Try again.

MIkeSC said:

I'd list all of the liberal folks in the MSM, but I worry it might crash the servers for Wizbang.

Well, geive it a shot, anyway. I'd love to see how many -- and who -- you actually come up with.

I will say that reporters vote overwhelmingly Democratic and label themselves as liberal twice as often as the public at large.

Based on what? Please site a study by a non-partisan group.

Gideon S. trying to sound rational at June 17, 2006 04:06 AM said

"DavidB," I see a lot of personal attacks and high-falutin' claims, but not facts. Or even an attempt at elementary logic. Try again.

Kettle, meet pot. Let's refresh, shall we?

You're hysterical. You should do stand-up.

And this . . .

Names via this letter to the editor . . .

So, you inject some sophomoric sarcasm as a personal attack against someone, but take offense when some was sent your way.

Then you accuse me of being devoid of facts when your initial post contained none, you'll notice that letter to the editor part, right?

You're post contained no logic, elementary or otherwise, nor facts. Try again yourself, but this time come better armed because you are obviously out of your element here.

But, since you have been devoid of facts, I can provide you a couple to begin with in your search for truth. Try these facts;

- 9 white house correspondents survey voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush
- 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988 - one for Bush
- 10 voted for Mondale in 1984 - zero for Reagan
- 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 - 2 for Reagan
Of course, none of these reporters could be biased at all in their reporting.......
Source: US News and World Report

This;

The following are the results of a poll (December, 1996) conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs:
1) most Americans think that the media are biased. Almost half (49%) think that the media usually don't "get the facts straight."

2) some two-thirds believe the media don't "deal fairly with all sides" in social and political reporting.

3) almost three-fourths of Americans see a "fair amount" or "great deal" of political bias in the news. And by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, poll resondents said that bias is liberal rather than conservative (43%-19%).

4) more than 60% of Americans surveyed prefer the media to "simply report the facts" and not "weigh the facts and offer suggestions about how to solve problems." This is a sharp break from ABC News' motto "News With Solutions."

5) some 65% do not believe that "journalists should point out what they believe are inaccuracies and distortions in the statements of public figures."

6) nearly 60% believe the news media have "too much influence."

7) some 47% think journalists have values different from their own.

Finally two links to help you along;

UCLA Poli Sci Study on Media Bias, the article
and
The actual study.

Now Grasshopper, go forth and learn. Seek to improve your education, broaden your horizons, stop drinking the kool-aid, and you shall reach enlightenment.

GideonS - Sullivan is no conservative. His only concern is all homosexuality, all the time. Anyone who disagrees with his pet project is th devil incarnate. And "GOP adherant at the end of the day"?

Um, yea, whatever. The dude voted for Kerry in 04.

And of COURSE those columnists and etc are responsible for their facts and etc.

And as for your "so-called liberalisation" crack, DavidB handled that quite nicely, but I'd also add that I used to be a reporter and city editor, and went through journalim school (much to my regret) so I have first-hand experience with how liberal the media is.

You have suppositions. We have facts and experience. Wanna try again?

By the way, I look terrible in red shorts. Clashes with those big red ears, you know.

So they don't have a responsibility to adhere to the facts? Or to behave in a civil manner?

What they do have is the freedom in their jobs to inject opinion into what they say -- unlike "news" reporters.

As for behaving in a civil manner, have you ever watched the "news" reporters at a White House press gaggle?

Well, geive it a shot, anyway. I'd love to see how many -- and who -- you actually come up with.

James Riesen. Dana Milbank. Dan Rather. Mike Wallace Tom Brokaw. Walter Cronkite. Katie Couric. Bob Schieffer. Anderson Cooper. Jim Vandehei. Dan Balz. Helen Thomas. Dan Froomkin. Matt Cooper. Walter Pincus.

Notice how I'm mentioning REPORTERS and not, as you did, PUNDITS?

I can continue, if you so desire.
-=Mike

Heck, I could pull up the roster of the WH Press Corps and have a field day.
-=Mike

DavidB,

Your Newsweek stats are absurd. First, where's a link, or the issue # that they allegedly appeared in?

Second, how many total W.H. correspondents are there? If 29 out of hundred are cited, that doesn't support your case.

The UCLA study you cited has already been debunked (See here -- and not just because it was written by two right-wing extremists.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs is NOT a non-partisan group, it's funded by right-wing extremists. Now, while that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be non-partisan, it's studies have been shown to be exceedingly flawed.

Oh, and "grasshopper," I suggest you stop watching "Fravda" and start getting real news from real sources. Here's a link to what these sources have to say about the liberal media myth.

Get over you persecution complex; the media isn't out to get you just because it occasionally reports the unpleasant truths about your party and your president.

Big Mo, if Sullivan voted for Kerry, so what? A lot of Republicans did. It doesn't mean that they're not Republicans, just that they see the damage Bush has done to the country.

McGehee, a pundit's job is to share their opinion, but that opinion needs to be bolstered by a few facts. Coulter, Limbaugh, et al falsify facts to give their opinions a veil of validity that doesn't exist.

And I've seen the W.H. press corps daily; with three exceptions during the last six years, reporters have been little lambs. Hardly the role that the media -- which is supposed to be adversarial -- should take. Your prez and your party have gotten a free ride.

MikeSC, saying that these reporters are liberal doesn't make them so. It also doesn't prove that their political persuasion, whatever it is, has had any bearing on their reporting.

I could ask you to provide specific examples of their "liberal" bias, then shoot those down, but I see that I'm wasting my time with a group of people who are, very simply, mentally ill, too consumed with hatred to think straight.

Coulter, Limbaugh, et al falsify facts...

Your opinion.

...a pundit's job is to share their opinion, but that opinion needs to be bolstered by a few facts.

Now: where are your facts?

Gideon, you use an article in MediaMatters as a source for debunking a study that would obviosuly be uncomfortable for the Liberal MediaMatters? Please, are you really that stupid? Please provide a non-partisan debunking, otherwise try again grasshopper.
Then you provide a link to a google search that has uses liberal sources, for the majority, as your news sources for debunking media bias. You really are a kool-aid drinker, aren't you?
Then you try to debunk another of the facts that I post from a non-partisan organization, by linking to a liberal web page that does not even provide a name for the author, and links to every possible ultra-left leaning web page and screaming liberal book author around.
Son, you have drank the kool-aid, taken the injection and swallowed the pill, you are so far gone as to be past delusional and into complete denial.
Based on your response, again with a lack of facts or logic, any further attempt at trying to get those facts from you would obviously be a waste of time.
Stop listening to the voices . . .