Post by Chris Basken"Chris Basken" wrote...
Post by Chris BaskenStill no examples? Come on, I gave you a half dozen. You could at
least throw me one.
Bush's story on the yellow cake from Niger was a clear fabrication.
When it
Post by Chris Baskenwas exposed, he had Tenet and the CIA take the blame, and the media let that
slide.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/07/CNN25.tan.wilson/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/sprj.irq.bush.sotu/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/12/sprj.irq.uk.uranium.straw/
Articles about the subject, yes. Critical of Bush, no.
Post by Chris BaskenIn the run up to the Iraq war, it was clear that any supposed nuclear
weapons program would require a sophisticated delivery system - missile
technology that would be fairly easy to detect. There was none, the media
let that slide by. The whole politicization of intelligence, and the
building of a separate intelligence apparatus within the Pentagon by the
neocons is largely ignored by the main stream media. You would think the
Pentagon taking over many of the intelligence functions of the CIA would be
a big story.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security/
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/cf.crossfire/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/24/hillary/
Articles about the subject, yes. Critical of Bush, no.
Post by Chris BaskenAmerican forces in Iraq kidnapped the family of an insurgent leader to try
to pressure him to surrender, a heinous violation of human rights.
Largely
Post by Chris Baskenunreported.
I have to admit, I found nothing on this. I'm not even aware of the
incident. Can you cite?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A54345-2003Jul27
Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division,
said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday
night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi
lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released,
turn yourself in."
Post by Chris BaskenSeen any in-depth stories on who will and won't benefit from the Medicare
Prescription Drug benefit? I haven't. Seen the press take Bush to task over
his "Clear Skies Act" which actually lowers air quality standards? I
haven't - and I watch CNN, the supposedly liberal network.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/25/dems.radio.ap/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/13/bush.medicare/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/23/congress.medicare/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/08/elec04.medicare/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/24/bush.dems.radio/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/22/churches.bush/
Stories about the issue in general, yes. But critical of Bush, and laying
out that this is a huge giveaway of taxpayer funds to pharmaceutical
companies, no.
Post by Chris BaskenDo you see them throw Cheney's statement from last May that the insurgency
is on it's last legs back in his face? Nope. When Bush and Cheney repeatedly
said the troops would be home soon, that the war would be finished on Bush's
watch, were they challenged by the press? Nope. When they recently changed
their tune and said the war would probably last past this presidency, were
their earlier statements brought up in the articles reporting the new
statements? Not that I could see.
Well, I dunno where you were in 2003, but I remember Bush saying the war
wouldn't be over fast. In any event, I can find plenty of articles
talking about the war, about protesters, counting each death. I admit I
couldn't find anything about Bush saying the war would be over during
his presidency, but then, I don't remember him ever saying that (and I
watched his speeches when he made them).
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/19/war.protests.ap/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/24/troops.iraq/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/
The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney
says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush
administration leaves office.
Post by Chris BaskenThe economy: Bush
Bush ran as a uniter not a divider: and yet his track record has been
incredibly divisive.
Hm. Elected with 49% of the popular vote in 2000, then re-elected with
51% of the popular vote in 2004. Divisive?
Very narrow victories: won by a margin of less than 1,000 votes in Florida
to win in 2000, won by about 100K votes in Ohio to win. Very narrow. Look
at the current furor between left and right - can you say with a straight
face the man is a uniter, not a divider?
Post by Chris BaskenBush has raised spending - and I don't mean security related, I mean general
social spending - by huge amounts. Do you see this reported on and compared
to Reagan style conservatism? I don't.
I do, but I agree not by the mainstream media. They love spending.
This isn't something they'd complain about.
Bush seems to have abandoned his privatization of Social Security. I don't
see reporting on that, nor did I see in-depth analysis of the patent
absurdity that taking money out of a pay-as-you-go system would somehow
shore up it's finances.
There were so many SS reform articles I didn't know where to start.
Just a sampling.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/social.security/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/03/social.security/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/press.social.security/
Articles about it, sure. Critical of the obvious financial bullshit in his
projections he used, and in how privatization would only make it worse, no.
And do you see articles pointing out that he has pretty much dropped the
whole thing?
Post by Chris BaskenWhen he made his latest State of the Union address, initiatives from his
last one (like returning to the moon, or was it Mars?) were forgotten.
No
Post by Chris Baskenmainstream press coverage of that.
Not much to report. And it was returning to the Moon. Bush never
mentioned Mars as a goal (not that it stops his political opponents from
pretending he did in an effort to make him seem unrealistic).
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/15/bush.space/
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/04/10/nasa.budget/
But when the next year's speech rolled around, did the press hold him
accountable, criticize him for putting this out there and then dropping it?
No.
Post by Chris BaskenIn the 2004 Presidential debates, Bush claimed 120K Iraqi security forces
would be trained within a year. Didn't happen, largely ignored. The
Level-1 ready number of Iraqi battalions was declared to be 3 last June,
then down to 1 last November, then down to zero last month. Was this all
over the news? Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/biden.iraq/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/22/robertson.iraq/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/04/bush.iraq/
Incidentally, there are 125 Iraqi battalions, not 3, 1, or zero.
I said Level-1 ready: that means able to operate independently. The media
has given him a free ride:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603140009
National Public Radio (NPR), the Associated Press, and ABC reported
uncritically on the purported improvement of Iraqi forces, as touted by
President Bush in a speech. But these outlets failed to note that the number
of Iraqi battalions capable of operating independently has dropped from
three in June 2005 to none eight months later. Moreover, contrary to NPR's
assertion, Bush ignored this statistic in his speech and instead focused on
other, more favorable indicators of improved troop readiness.
On the March 13 broadcast of National Public Radio's (NPR) Talk of the
Nation, White House correspondent David Greene falsely reported that
President Bush, in a speech that day on Iraq, had asserted that the number
of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) battalions able to operate independently of
the United States-led coalition had increased as of late. In fact, according
to the Pentagon, the number of Iraqi battalions capable of operating
independently has dropped from three in June 2005 to none eight months
later. Moreover, contrary to NPR's assertion, Bush's speech did not address
the ability of ISF forces to operate independently and instead focused on
other, more favorable indicators of improved troop readiness.
Further, both the Associated Press and ABC's World News Tonight, in their
coverage of the speech, repeated Bush's positive assessment of the training
of the Iraqi forces but failed to note that the number of independent
battalions has diminished over the past year.
In June 2005, senior U.S. commanders disclosed that, of the 107 Iraqi
battalions formed at the time, three had achieved "Level 1" status,
indicating their capability to plan and conduct independent operations. On
September 29, 2005, however, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S.
commander in Iraq, informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that this
number had dropped to one battalion. More recently, Pentagon officials
stated on February 24 that the number of Level 1 battalions had fallen to
zero.
In a March 13 speech, Bush cited increases in the total number of Iraqi
battalions as well as the number able to lead operations alongside U.S.
forces. But he ignored entirely the drop in those units able to operate
independently:
BUSH: When I reported on the progress of the Iraqi security forces last
year, I said that there were over 120 Iraqi and police combat battalions
[sic] in the fight against the enemy -- and 40 of those were taking the lead
in the fight. Today the number of battalions in the fight has increased to
more than 130 -- with more than 60 taking the lead. As more Iraqi battalions
come on line, these Iraqi forces are assuming responsibility for more
territory. Today, Iraqi units have primary responsibility for more than
30,000 square miles of Iraq -- an increase of roughly 20,000 square miles
since the beginning of the year. And Iraqi forces are now conducting more
independent operations throughout the country than do coalition forces.
Discussing the speech with Talk of the Nation host Michel Martin, Greene
noted the doubts surrounding Iraqi troop readiness, but nonetheless falsely
reported that Bush had cited an increase in the number of Iraqi battalions
"acting independently without the help of U.S. coalition forces." By doing
so, Greene suggested that the number of independent Iraqi units had indeed
increased, when in fact they have fallen to zero.
- - -
A fine example of the free ride the press gives Bush. They report, but are
not critical of the bullshit he spins.
