Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Media Bias: Dead Students Trump Dead Soldiers
I had wanted to get this post up a day ago, but the rigors of competing in the great American fiction writing contest, otherwise known as the federal income tax filing deadline (yeah, I know, I'm a procrastinator), and some interesting research into dream theory kept me more than busy enough yesterday.
The 32 deaths at Virginia Tech are surely a tragedy worthy of our attention, remorse and sharing in the grief of the families of the victims. The murder rampage was an horrific act perpetrated by a deranged individual who apparently needed psychiatric medical attention more than the right to buy handguns.
But the media coverage of the tragedy bordered on pandering and sensationalism in its most overt form. On Tuesday, a day after the awful event, all three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) expanded their usual half-hour nightly news programs to an hour to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the aftermath, the grief, the President's visit and speech. PBS devoted their entire news hour to coverage of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
The networks also each aired special reports on the story, grasping desperately for every last heart-string and crushed emotion.
I, for one, found no good reason to immerse myself in the media spasm and could not bring myself to watch. There was nothing newsworthy in rehashing these morbid events.
But the networks' coverage got me to thinking about death, Americans and the media. Why is it that a senseless tragedy such as this merits additional coverage when our military routinely loses that many American soldiers - many of them roughly the same age - every two weeks in Iraq?
Are the students more deserving of our attention and grief than the soldiers? The students were victims, unsuspecting and innocent. The soldiers who die in Iraq (to say nothing of the countless Iraqi civilian deaths) are ostensibly putting their lives on the line for the rest of us. They deserve at least the same coverage by the media, if not more - more focused, more poignant, more probing - than the sobbing narration that substituted for journalism these past two days.
I offer no apologies for the media's choices, nor do they, but perhaps events such as those in Blacksburg, Virginia are easier to cover than those in Baghdad, Iraq. The networks can get more reporters, film crews and staff in place much more quickly and efficiently than to the arrival points of the flag-draped caskets from Iraq. (The sad fact is that the media is barred from covering the homecomings of dead soldiers by the government.)
As I grieve for the students, I grieve for the soldiers and their families who are not given rightful respect and honor even in their deaths. These too are sons and daughters, some mothers and fathers, yet when they die, the American public is hardly made aware.
Maybe a picture and a name may be flashed across the screen some days later. PBS does this most often on Fridays and ABC regularly displays the names of the fallen on their Sunday news show, This Week. But that is all the coverage they get, when they deserve so much more.
The truth is that Americans are mostly ashamed of the war in Iraq. A majority of us want our military to stop the carnage and come home, but the best the media can do is ignore the dead and report the routine killing of Iraqis and Americans in the loathsome maw of war.
Shame on them.
The 32 deaths at Virginia Tech are surely a tragedy worthy of our attention, remorse and sharing in the grief of the families of the victims. The murder rampage was an horrific act perpetrated by a deranged individual who apparently needed psychiatric medical attention more than the right to buy handguns.
But the media coverage of the tragedy bordered on pandering and sensationalism in its most overt form. On Tuesday, a day after the awful event, all three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) expanded their usual half-hour nightly news programs to an hour to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the aftermath, the grief, the President's visit and speech. PBS devoted their entire news hour to coverage of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
The networks also each aired special reports on the story, grasping desperately for every last heart-string and crushed emotion.
I, for one, found no good reason to immerse myself in the media spasm and could not bring myself to watch. There was nothing newsworthy in rehashing these morbid events.
But the networks' coverage got me to thinking about death, Americans and the media. Why is it that a senseless tragedy such as this merits additional coverage when our military routinely loses that many American soldiers - many of them roughly the same age - every two weeks in Iraq?
Are the students more deserving of our attention and grief than the soldiers? The students were victims, unsuspecting and innocent. The soldiers who die in Iraq (to say nothing of the countless Iraqi civilian deaths) are ostensibly putting their lives on the line for the rest of us. They deserve at least the same coverage by the media, if not more - more focused, more poignant, more probing - than the sobbing narration that substituted for journalism these past two days.
I offer no apologies for the media's choices, nor do they, but perhaps events such as those in Blacksburg, Virginia are easier to cover than those in Baghdad, Iraq. The networks can get more reporters, film crews and staff in place much more quickly and efficiently than to the arrival points of the flag-draped caskets from Iraq. (The sad fact is that the media is barred from covering the homecomings of dead soldiers by the government.)
As I grieve for the students, I grieve for the soldiers and their families who are not given rightful respect and honor even in their deaths. These too are sons and daughters, some mothers and fathers, yet when they die, the American public is hardly made aware.
Maybe a picture and a name may be flashed across the screen some days later. PBS does this most often on Fridays and ABC regularly displays the names of the fallen on their Sunday news show, This Week. But that is all the coverage they get, when they deserve so much more.
The truth is that Americans are mostly ashamed of the war in Iraq. A majority of us want our military to stop the carnage and come home, but the best the media can do is ignore the dead and report the routine killing of Iraqis and Americans in the loathsome maw of war.
Shame on them.
Labels: Iraq, Virginia Tech
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Is Martha Raddatz a War Profiteer?
While watching Charlie Rose last night on PBS, it occurred to me that his guest, ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz, might, in another political climate, qualify as a war profiteer.
Ms. Raddatz, who glowingly proclaimed that she has covered the war in Iraq from "the Pentagon, the White House and on the ground" has penned a new book, The Long Road Home: A Story of War and Family, detailing the travails of a group of soldiers who were essentially ambushed in Baghdad's Sadr City in 2004. The book purports to offer perspective from both the soldiers and the family of the soldiers.
In an ironic twist (and maybe Raddatz's motivation for writing the book) the death of Casey Sheehan, son of activist Cindy Sheehan, is detailed. Could the tie-in with Sheehan been a convenient excuse for Raddatz to capitalize on death and destruction in a foreign land?
That could be the case. Raddatz has been pretty busy on the book-promotion front. Her appearance on Rose's broadcast wasn't the first - and apparently not the last - time she'll be appearing on national or syndicated TV this week.
The media likes to make heroes out of journalists who write war stories, regardless of the background. In an amazing revelation of her boundless ego, Raddatz even went so far as to say she faced the same dangers as the soldiers. Sorry, Martha, I don't think so. It's that kind of talk and thinking that makes me want to tell people like Raddatz to strap on some kevlar, grab a weapon and go cap some terrorists. The attitude of journalists is insanity couched in some perverted sense of honor and duty. In reality, it's rubbish.
War is glorified in books such as these without examining the deeper issues. While Raddatz was surely paid a princely sum for this work, I won't read something which essentially was bought and paid for with blood money. The war is on all our hands, but Ms. Raddatz's have a particularly crimson hue.
Ms. Raddatz, who glowingly proclaimed that she has covered the war in Iraq from "the Pentagon, the White House and on the ground" has penned a new book, The Long Road Home: A Story of War and Family, detailing the travails of a group of soldiers who were essentially ambushed in Baghdad's Sadr City in 2004. The book purports to offer perspective from both the soldiers and the family of the soldiers.
In an ironic twist (and maybe Raddatz's motivation for writing the book) the death of Casey Sheehan, son of activist Cindy Sheehan, is detailed. Could the tie-in with Sheehan been a convenient excuse for Raddatz to capitalize on death and destruction in a foreign land?
That could be the case. Raddatz has been pretty busy on the book-promotion front. Her appearance on Rose's broadcast wasn't the first - and apparently not the last - time she'll be appearing on national or syndicated TV this week.
The media likes to make heroes out of journalists who write war stories, regardless of the background. In an amazing revelation of her boundless ego, Raddatz even went so far as to say she faced the same dangers as the soldiers. Sorry, Martha, I don't think so. It's that kind of talk and thinking that makes me want to tell people like Raddatz to strap on some kevlar, grab a weapon and go cap some terrorists. The attitude of journalists is insanity couched in some perverted sense of honor and duty. In reality, it's rubbish.
War is glorified in books such as these without examining the deeper issues. While Raddatz was surely paid a princely sum for this work, I won't read something which essentially was bought and paid for with blood money. The war is on all our hands, but Ms. Raddatz's have a particularly crimson hue.
Labels: corporate media, Iraq, Martha Raddatz
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
March on Pentagon March 17
Next Saturday, a coalition of anti-war groups will march on the Pentagon in protest of American involvement in Iraq. The March 17th protest will occur on the 40th anniversary of a 1967 march on the Pentagon that was a major milestone in the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. The countries are different but the message of protesters is eerily similar: we shouldn't be there and we need to get our troops out.
Organizers of civic and anti-war groups say they expect tens of thousands of people to join the protest march on the Pentagon. Among the many groups which will be represented at the march are the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and many other dedicated anti-war groups who see the United States' involvement in Iraq as criminal and completely unjustified.
Considering how the war seems to have no end in sight, it's difficult not to agree with the views of the protesters. That their march will have any impact is doubtful, especially considering the cynicism in both the White House and Congress. At least there are still some Americans willing to voice their opposition to the war. I am one of them and while I can't make it to Washington, I will stand in solidarity and report on the event here in this blog. It's the least I can do.
Organizers of civic and anti-war groups say they expect tens of thousands of people to join the protest march on the Pentagon. Among the many groups which will be represented at the march are the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and many other dedicated anti-war groups who see the United States' involvement in Iraq as criminal and completely unjustified.
Considering how the war seems to have no end in sight, it's difficult not to agree with the views of the protesters. That their march will have any impact is doubtful, especially considering the cynicism in both the White House and Congress. At least there are still some Americans willing to voice their opposition to the war. I am one of them and while I can't make it to Washington, I will stand in solidarity and report on the event here in this blog. It's the least I can do.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Parade of Liars: the Ruling Class Run Amuck
With each day that passes with war and sectarian violence raging in Iraq and Democrats and Republicans in the Congress debating (or shutting down debate on) non-binding resolutions, it becomes more and more evident that the Congress is - though now ostensibly in the hands of a Democratic majority - powerless to oppose the functional dictatorship of George W. Bush.
The talking heads on the Sunday shows are nothing more than waifs and apparitions, lacking resolve to oppose the efforts of the administration, opting instead for symbolistic posturing and hyperbole over outright opposition in congruence with the will of the people.
Maudlin would be the most apropos term to describe the ongoing dialogue between elected officials on both sides of the aisle. It makes a travesty of the truth, becomes an abrogation of trust and appears to be the end of democracy as we have known it.
After the mandatory Iraq talk, all of the shows devolve into debating the relative merits of the 2008 presidential candidates as though that is an issue of any import with the first primaries 11 months ahead and the actual presidential election nearly two years in the future.
It's as though all that matters is the political news cycle, not actual legislation or policy, but the silly popularity contest of presidential politics and the monotonous drone of debate without consequence.
It is because of this sorrowful and sickening malaise, this disservice to the citizenry of the United States, that I have decided to make this Sunday Talk Show Scorecard the last, and instead devote the efforts of this blog to exposing the abject failure of government, the hypocrisy of both the left and the right (though currently mostly the left), and promoting the ideals of democracy and self-determination by denouncing the monstrous lies of the federal government.
Having been a regular viewer of the Sunday shows for many years, it's evident that these shows, as currently produced and configured, are designed to tantalize and placate the populace, not inform nor educate.
It's obvious from our scoreboard these past 4 months that the best one could hope for in this environment of public fear and official impotence would be a balance of voices from the left and the right, but the left, in the persona of elected officials, is not representative of progressive views. Instead of Thom Hartmann, David Korn, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, and Paul Craig Roberts, we are fed steady doses of the likes of Steny Hoyer, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton.
Those who pontificate from the right are so far removed from the travails of ordinary people as to be wholly worthless. Their views are so poignantly opposed to the public good that in another time - a better time - they would all have been in shackles by now.
These elected types - the ruing class - have not the interest of their constituents in mind. They share one interest, that being job security through election and re-election. The ruling class, as has been proven by legislation passed over the past six years, are ineffectual, intellectually dishonest, greedy, petty, lazy, elitist, obstructionist, arrogant in their disregard and disinterest in the welfare of the citizenry, close-minded, craven and ultimately self-interested to the point of being hazardous to the very people they were elected to serve.
The American people have few good choices remaining to them as our democracy is shorn to little indiscernible pieces and the Constitution is trampled under the jack boot of the corporatists at the head of government. We have seen what is produced by overthrowing the majority: a new majority which preens and postures and poses, and does nothing. Surely, the tactic of voting for change has provided only false hope and great disillusionment.
We can criticize and cajole the ruling class, express our wishes in poll after poll, but those wishes, wants and desires go unheard, our hopes and dreams shattered on the hard granite steps of the Capitol before ever reaching the ears of those who promise change.
We can, however, excel the ruling class in one regard. We can become oblivious to their laws and pronouncements and carry on our lives without heed to their autocratic, undemocratic and essentially unrepresentative decrees, regulations, fees and taxes.
Surely, we cannot completely disregard the established laws of the land, but we can act in concert and individually to thwart the imperial obsessions of a rigid tyranny. No law is so absolute that it cannot be debated and repealed, no tax so universal that cannot be avoided nor diminished, no regulation so binding that cannot be overruled.
Citizens of the United States of America deserve better representation than is now being afforded to them. We have already demanded this and have received little more than polite lip service. It is past the time for debate, past demands unanswered, past acceptance of the status quo. It is time for a second American revolution.
We are oppressed by a seemingly-benign government which stabs us in the back with incessant, excessive taxation to fill the coffers from which they steal and plunder. Always we are asked for more and given less. It's high time to turn the tables on the ruthless ruling class: give them less and demand more. We must demand - and receive - more accountability, more honesty, and ultimately more common sense legislation for the common good.
There are laws which need to be repealed or, at the least, amended. There are inequities which need to be corrected and issues of great import that need to be addressed wholly, openly and without invective or insult. There are lies which need to be exposed and leaders who need to lead from the font of public opinion, not from any particular political perspective.
The situation we face as a people is dire. It may not seem so on the surface, but the machinery of oppression has been at work, unchecked, for many years. And if it is allowed to continue in this manner, in a very short time we will have a country which very few of us will recognize.
I can find no better words to close than those which are not my own, but which should resonate with every American who stands for freedom:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. -- John Philpot Curran
February 11 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 14
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12, 2006.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
The talking heads on the Sunday shows are nothing more than waifs and apparitions, lacking resolve to oppose the efforts of the administration, opting instead for symbolistic posturing and hyperbole over outright opposition in congruence with the will of the people.
Maudlin would be the most apropos term to describe the ongoing dialogue between elected officials on both sides of the aisle. It makes a travesty of the truth, becomes an abrogation of trust and appears to be the end of democracy as we have known it.
After the mandatory Iraq talk, all of the shows devolve into debating the relative merits of the 2008 presidential candidates as though that is an issue of any import with the first primaries 11 months ahead and the actual presidential election nearly two years in the future.
It's as though all that matters is the political news cycle, not actual legislation or policy, but the silly popularity contest of presidential politics and the monotonous drone of debate without consequence.
It is because of this sorrowful and sickening malaise, this disservice to the citizenry of the United States, that I have decided to make this Sunday Talk Show Scorecard the last, and instead devote the efforts of this blog to exposing the abject failure of government, the hypocrisy of both the left and the right (though currently mostly the left), and promoting the ideals of democracy and self-determination by denouncing the monstrous lies of the federal government.
Having been a regular viewer of the Sunday shows for many years, it's evident that these shows, as currently produced and configured, are designed to tantalize and placate the populace, not inform nor educate.
It's obvious from our scoreboard these past 4 months that the best one could hope for in this environment of public fear and official impotence would be a balance of voices from the left and the right, but the left, in the persona of elected officials, is not representative of progressive views. Instead of Thom Hartmann, David Korn, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, and Paul Craig Roberts, we are fed steady doses of the likes of Steny Hoyer, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton.
Those who pontificate from the right are so far removed from the travails of ordinary people as to be wholly worthless. Their views are so poignantly opposed to the public good that in another time - a better time - they would all have been in shackles by now.
These elected types - the ruing class - have not the interest of their constituents in mind. They share one interest, that being job security through election and re-election. The ruling class, as has been proven by legislation passed over the past six years, are ineffectual, intellectually dishonest, greedy, petty, lazy, elitist, obstructionist, arrogant in their disregard and disinterest in the welfare of the citizenry, close-minded, craven and ultimately self-interested to the point of being hazardous to the very people they were elected to serve.
The American people have few good choices remaining to them as our democracy is shorn to little indiscernible pieces and the Constitution is trampled under the jack boot of the corporatists at the head of government. We have seen what is produced by overthrowing the majority: a new majority which preens and postures and poses, and does nothing. Surely, the tactic of voting for change has provided only false hope and great disillusionment.
We can criticize and cajole the ruling class, express our wishes in poll after poll, but those wishes, wants and desires go unheard, our hopes and dreams shattered on the hard granite steps of the Capitol before ever reaching the ears of those who promise change.
We can, however, excel the ruling class in one regard. We can become oblivious to their laws and pronouncements and carry on our lives without heed to their autocratic, undemocratic and essentially unrepresentative decrees, regulations, fees and taxes.
Surely, we cannot completely disregard the established laws of the land, but we can act in concert and individually to thwart the imperial obsessions of a rigid tyranny. No law is so absolute that it cannot be debated and repealed, no tax so universal that cannot be avoided nor diminished, no regulation so binding that cannot be overruled.
Citizens of the United States of America deserve better representation than is now being afforded to them. We have already demanded this and have received little more than polite lip service. It is past the time for debate, past demands unanswered, past acceptance of the status quo. It is time for a second American revolution.
We are oppressed by a seemingly-benign government which stabs us in the back with incessant, excessive taxation to fill the coffers from which they steal and plunder. Always we are asked for more and given less. It's high time to turn the tables on the ruthless ruling class: give them less and demand more. We must demand - and receive - more accountability, more honesty, and ultimately more common sense legislation for the common good.
There are laws which need to be repealed or, at the least, amended. There are inequities which need to be corrected and issues of great import that need to be addressed wholly, openly and without invective or insult. There are lies which need to be exposed and leaders who need to lead from the font of public opinion, not from any particular political perspective.
The situation we face as a people is dire. It may not seem so on the surface, but the machinery of oppression has been at work, unchecked, for many years. And if it is allowed to continue in this manner, in a very short time we will have a country which very few of us will recognize.
I can find no better words to close than those which are not my own, but which should resonate with every American who stands for freedom:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. -- John Philpot Curran
February 11 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 14
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | Reps. Steny Hoyer (D) and John Boehner (R) | 1 | 1-2 | 12-35 | 34.29 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | Senators Mitch McConnell (R) and Jack Reed (D), former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith (R) | 1 | 1-3 | 15-37 | 40.54 |
| This Week (ABC) | SenatorJohn Kerry (D), presidential contender Mike Huckabee (R) | 1 | 1-2 | 19-38 | 50.00 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | Senators Chris Dodd (D) and Trent Lott (R) | 1 | 1-2 | 11-27 | 40.74 |
| Total for week, all shows (14 weeks) | all guests | 4 | 4-9 | 57-137 | 41.61 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12, 2006.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Labels: eternal vigilance, Iraq, liberty, public policy, ruling class, taxes
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Sunday Talk Show Scoreboard for February 4, 2007
Notes on the Shows (Feb. 4): NBC's Meet the Press hit a home run with it's hour-long interview with Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. Meanwhile, CBS struck out by punting with an all-super Bowl tie-in show.
The Super Bowl network may be excused this week, but barely. There's already more worldwide coverage of the Super Bowl than there is on, say, Iraq. It was an easy call for CBS execs, but fans in the stands usually boo when a team punts, and this was a punt.
Edwards represented himself well on Sunday. Possibly the most important statement by the former Senator was, "They [Iran and Syria] will never participate in stabilizing Iraq as long as the United States is an occupying force."
Edwards clearly understands the intricacies of the Middle East and has a plan for US withdrawal. However, he isn't a sitting member of Congress, so he does not have to vote on or introduce any proposals. He presently enjoys the luxury of sitting back and criticizing all sides. Nevertheless, Edwards has consistently shown a willingness to extricate the US from Iraq and employ diplomacy, rather than force, to achieve positive resolution there.
It's anybody's guess why the networks continue to put Senator John McCain on the air. He adds nothing to the discussion except his repetitive "stay the course" and "we must win" messages. His grasp of the situation in the Middle East can be described as monolithic at best.
ABC managed to somewhat even the score with Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who fielded questions on the upcoming Senate non-binding resolution in opposition to the president's surge strategy. Hagel may have invoked some inside baseball when he said that 12 Republican Senators were on board with him and John Warner on the subject.
If there are indeed 12 Republicans who will vote with Warner and Hagel, the resolution will pass cloture (by 61-38) and be debated this week. Democrat Joe Lieberman is likely to align himself with the hard-liners and hospitalized Senator Tim Johnson will not be able to vote.
Hagel also left open the question of whether or not he'll run for president in '08, though he did respond by saying he was not an anti-war candidate, even though he sure looks like one.
February 4, 2007, Week 13
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12, 2006.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
The Super Bowl network may be excused this week, but barely. There's already more worldwide coverage of the Super Bowl than there is on, say, Iraq. It was an easy call for CBS execs, but fans in the stands usually boo when a team punts, and this was a punt.
Edwards represented himself well on Sunday. Possibly the most important statement by the former Senator was, "They [Iran and Syria] will never participate in stabilizing Iraq as long as the United States is an occupying force."
Edwards clearly understands the intricacies of the Middle East and has a plan for US withdrawal. However, he isn't a sitting member of Congress, so he does not have to vote on or introduce any proposals. He presently enjoys the luxury of sitting back and criticizing all sides. Nevertheless, Edwards has consistently shown a willingness to extricate the US from Iraq and employ diplomacy, rather than force, to achieve positive resolution there.
It's anybody's guess why the networks continue to put Senator John McCain on the air. He adds nothing to the discussion except his repetitive "stay the course" and "we must win" messages. His grasp of the situation in the Middle East can be described as monolithic at best.
ABC managed to somewhat even the score with Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who fielded questions on the upcoming Senate non-binding resolution in opposition to the president's surge strategy. Hagel may have invoked some inside baseball when he said that 12 Republican Senators were on board with him and John Warner on the subject.
If there are indeed 12 Republicans who will vote with Warner and Hagel, the resolution will pass cloture (by 61-38) and be debated this week. Democrat Joe Lieberman is likely to align himself with the hard-liners and hospitalized Senator Tim Johnson will not be able to vote.
Hagel also left open the question of whether or not he'll run for president in '08, though he did respond by saying he was not an anti-war candidate, even though he sure looks like one.
February 4, 2007, Week 13
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | John Edwards (D) | 1 | 1-1 | 11-33 | 33.33 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | Senators Jim Webb (D), Lindsey Graham (R) | 1 | 1-2 | 14-34 | 41.18 |
| This Week (ABC) | Senators John McCain (R) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) | 1 | 1-2 | 18-36 | 50.00 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell; sportscasters' panel Phil Simms, Jim Nantz and Dan Marino | 0 | 0-1 | 10-25 | 40.00 |
| Total for week, all shows (13 weeks) | all guests | 3 | 3-6 | 53-128 | 41.41 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12, 2006.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Labels: Chuck Hagel, Iraq, John Edwards
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Sunday Talk Shows Scoreboard, January 28, 2007
Notes on the shows: Who's in charge here?
That is my question after watching the absurd display presented by the network talk shows this Sunday. Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, both led off with Republican presidential candidates, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, respectively. Both initial interviews quickly glossed over Iraq in the first two to three minutes before devolving into discussions of family values, abortion and religion. This display of irresponsibility was nothing short of abhorrent behavior against the public interest by NBC's Tim Russert and Fox's Chris Wallace and the producers of both shows.
Fox fell even further into the abyss, trotting out Senator Joe Lieberman on as their next guest. Lieberman tried once again to paint the November 2006 as a rejection of "partisanship" rather than the true repudiation of the President's policies.
NBC at least made an attempt at balance with NY Senator Charles Schumer as their second guest. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), a supporter of the President's "troop surge" and opponent of regional diplomacy, followed up with more talk of escalation and even mentioned that he may be amenable to sending even more troops.
ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous was no less disheartening. The dueling Senators, Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Richard Lugar, at least - from Biden's perspective - discussed the merits of the surge and touched on Iran. Unfortunately, the discussion was too short (about 10 minutes) to be meaningful. The pundit round table didn't mention Iraq except in the context of the 2008 presidential election, preferring to focus on the proposed health care tax breaks offered by Bush in the State of the Union message and the far-off primaries.
Senator Jim Webb of Virginia waffled badly on Face the Nation, saying he's not opposed to the War in Iraq and not opposed to the president's surge policy, couching his criticism in abstractions like "opposed to the strategic mistake" and the president's "lack of a strategy."
Bob Schieffer's commentary on "the truth" was poignant and, in the current environment, rather risky. His criticism of how the government and the military has shaded (and often outright lied) about the war in Iraq and other issues, should strike a nerve in the collective consciousness. We can only hope.
Nowhere was there any mention of Saturday's 7 American deaths in Iraq nor the massive anti-war rally on the National Mall on Saturday, except for CBS, who opened their show with video from the rally on Face the Nation. The trial of "Scooter" Libby was given a short discussion by Fox's panel. Not a word was spoken about the Senate's rejection of a minimum wage increase (due to the efforts of the Republican minority) or the soon-to-be-reconvened Senate Intelligence Committee investigating pre-war intelligence - reports from which Vice President Dick Cheney office has consistently sought to delay.
In the end, watching the Sunday morning shows is a depressing experience for anyone who believes in a free, open American society with a responsible, free, fair press. The misuse of the public airwaves by the media giants which control them is appalling. It's obvious that the American public is being disserved by television media and that the only truth in journalism can be found on carefully selected internet sites and progressive radio stations.
For example, take these two articles from the highly-regarded political newsletter, CounterPunch: What's Really Going on in Baghdad by Patrick Cockburn, and Why Can't Americans See What's Coming? by Paul Craig Roberts.
The titles of the Counterpunch articles alone offer an insight to the divergence of opinion and disagreement of what important journalism really is. While the mainstream TV media glosses over Iraq and debates family values and the 2008 election, real journalism is reporting directly from Baghdad and probing the president's pending attack on Iraq.
TV media failed in the run up to the war in Iraq, they have continued to fail, are failing us now and will continue to fail with a flawed, audacious sense of self-importance and faulty journalistic reasoning.
Make no mistake, the Congress won't prevent the president from sending more troops to Iraq and elsewhere and the widening of the war - including Iran - is now a distinct possibility. Even after the resounding victories by Democrats in the mid-term elections, the president's power is still absolute, the Congress - especially the Senate - continues to abrogate its responsibility and the media whitewashes all debate and discussion.
January 28 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 12
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
That is my question after watching the absurd display presented by the network talk shows this Sunday. Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, both led off with Republican presidential candidates, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, respectively. Both initial interviews quickly glossed over Iraq in the first two to three minutes before devolving into discussions of family values, abortion and religion. This display of irresponsibility was nothing short of abhorrent behavior against the public interest by NBC's Tim Russert and Fox's Chris Wallace and the producers of both shows.
Fox fell even further into the abyss, trotting out Senator Joe Lieberman on as their next guest. Lieberman tried once again to paint the November 2006 as a rejection of "partisanship" rather than the true repudiation of the President's policies.
NBC at least made an attempt at balance with NY Senator Charles Schumer as their second guest. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), a supporter of the President's "troop surge" and opponent of regional diplomacy, followed up with more talk of escalation and even mentioned that he may be amenable to sending even more troops.
ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous was no less disheartening. The dueling Senators, Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Richard Lugar, at least - from Biden's perspective - discussed the merits of the surge and touched on Iran. Unfortunately, the discussion was too short (about 10 minutes) to be meaningful. The pundit round table didn't mention Iraq except in the context of the 2008 presidential election, preferring to focus on the proposed health care tax breaks offered by Bush in the State of the Union message and the far-off primaries.
Senator Jim Webb of Virginia waffled badly on Face the Nation, saying he's not opposed to the War in Iraq and not opposed to the president's surge policy, couching his criticism in abstractions like "opposed to the strategic mistake" and the president's "lack of a strategy."
Bob Schieffer's commentary on "the truth" was poignant and, in the current environment, rather risky. His criticism of how the government and the military has shaded (and often outright lied) about the war in Iraq and other issues, should strike a nerve in the collective consciousness. We can only hope.
Nowhere was there any mention of Saturday's 7 American deaths in Iraq nor the massive anti-war rally on the National Mall on Saturday, except for CBS, who opened their show with video from the rally on Face the Nation. The trial of "Scooter" Libby was given a short discussion by Fox's panel. Not a word was spoken about the Senate's rejection of a minimum wage increase (due to the efforts of the Republican minority) or the soon-to-be-reconvened Senate Intelligence Committee investigating pre-war intelligence - reports from which Vice President Dick Cheney office has consistently sought to delay.
In the end, watching the Sunday morning shows is a depressing experience for anyone who believes in a free, open American society with a responsible, free, fair press. The misuse of the public airwaves by the media giants which control them is appalling. It's obvious that the American public is being disserved by television media and that the only truth in journalism can be found on carefully selected internet sites and progressive radio stations.
For example, take these two articles from the highly-regarded political newsletter, CounterPunch: What's Really Going on in Baghdad by Patrick Cockburn, and Why Can't Americans See What's Coming? by Paul Craig Roberts.
The titles of the Counterpunch articles alone offer an insight to the divergence of opinion and disagreement of what important journalism really is. While the mainstream TV media glosses over Iraq and debates family values and the 2008 election, real journalism is reporting directly from Baghdad and probing the president's pending attack on Iraq.
TV media failed in the run up to the war in Iraq, they have continued to fail, are failing us now and will continue to fail with a flawed, audacious sense of self-importance and faulty journalistic reasoning.
Make no mistake, the Congress won't prevent the president from sending more troops to Iraq and elsewhere and the widening of the war - including Iran - is now a distinct possibility. Even after the resounding victories by Democrats in the mid-term elections, the president's power is still absolute, the Congress - especially the Senate - continues to abrogate its responsibility and the media whitewashes all debate and discussion.
January 28 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 12
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Senators Vitter (R), Charles Schumer (D) | 1 | 1-3 | 10-32 | 31.25 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | Senators Sam Brownback (D), Joe Lieberman (I), | 0 | 0-2 | 13-32 | 40.63 |
| This Week (ABC) | Senators Richard Lugar (R), Joe Biden (D), Representative Dncan Hunter (R) | 1 | 1-3 | 17-34 | 50.00 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | Senators Jim Webb (D), Arlen Spector (R), Mitch McConnell (R) | 1 | 1-3 | 10-24 | 41.66 |
| Total for week, all shows (12 weeks) | all guests | 3 | 3-11 | 50-122 | 40.98 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Labels: Iran, Iraq, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Sunday Talk Shows Scoreboard for January 21, 2007
Notes on the Shows: Kristol calls Dems "irresponsible."
It was a fairly good week for progressive politics as 5 of 8 main guests represented the majority view. Once again, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was given a positive nod, being that he is opposed to increasing troops in Iraq. He acts as a counter-balance to Joe Lieberman, a Democrat who sides with the administration almost all the time.
Among the more insipid and/or inspired quotes of the day, John McCain had a number of solid right-wing one-liners, such as "I would have liked to have seen more [troops sent to Iraq]"; "I guarantee the catastrophic results of failure"; "This [the proposed Senate non-binding] resolution is a vote of no confidence in the troops we're sending"; and, "It's [Iraq conflict] going to be long and hard and difficult..." Sweet. We can only hope that McCain emerges as the Republican candidate for president in '08.
Newt Gingrich actually made some sense on FOX, saying, "The inter-agency process is broken. It's pathetic how bad our non military bureaucracy is." He added, "We're in a long-term war. Iraq is a campaign." Another potential presidential candidate speaks out. Recall that Newt was pushing the World War III rhetoric this past summer. OH BOY!
Newt could not contain his abject hatred for Democrats when he commented on Nancy Pelosi's agenda, "typically democratic in that they had to have a tax increase as part of the first 100 hours." I don't know what Newt saw, but I certainly didn't see the Dems pass any tax increases. It's good to get people like Gingrich on the record because at best he's misrepresenting, at worst, he's lying.
Biden and Levin were given 12 minutes between them. Gingrich was on for 9 minutes alone. FOX was fair and balanced, as always.
Ted Kennedy on Meet the Press, offered, "The burden is on the president to prove that the surge will work." Plus, "If we have a president who is going to defy the American people, the military and the Congress, we have a responsibility to end the funding for the war."
Kennedy continued with this beauty: He [Bush] ought to come to Congress. The burden is on him. We are offering an alternative policy. They don't have an alternative policy. We have an alternative that will supply some training and diplomacy which they haven't tried.
Bill Kristol once again was on top of his game: "It's so irresponsible that they [Democrats] can't just be quiet for six or nine months." Geez, Bill, why not just come out and say what you mean?
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
It was a fairly good week for progressive politics as 5 of 8 main guests represented the majority view. Once again, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was given a positive nod, being that he is opposed to increasing troops in Iraq. He acts as a counter-balance to Joe Lieberman, a Democrat who sides with the administration almost all the time.
Among the more insipid and/or inspired quotes of the day, John McCain had a number of solid right-wing one-liners, such as "I would have liked to have seen more [troops sent to Iraq]"; "I guarantee the catastrophic results of failure"; "This [the proposed Senate non-binding] resolution is a vote of no confidence in the troops we're sending"; and, "It's [Iraq conflict] going to be long and hard and difficult..." Sweet. We can only hope that McCain emerges as the Republican candidate for president in '08.
Newt Gingrich actually made some sense on FOX, saying, "The inter-agency process is broken. It's pathetic how bad our non military bureaucracy is." He added, "We're in a long-term war. Iraq is a campaign." Another potential presidential candidate speaks out. Recall that Newt was pushing the World War III rhetoric this past summer. OH BOY!
Newt could not contain his abject hatred for Democrats when he commented on Nancy Pelosi's agenda, "typically democratic in that they had to have a tax increase as part of the first 100 hours." I don't know what Newt saw, but I certainly didn't see the Dems pass any tax increases. It's good to get people like Gingrich on the record because at best he's misrepresenting, at worst, he's lying.
Biden and Levin were given 12 minutes between them. Gingrich was on for 9 minutes alone. FOX was fair and balanced, as always.
Ted Kennedy on Meet the Press, offered, "The burden is on the president to prove that the surge will work." Plus, "If we have a president who is going to defy the American people, the military and the Congress, we have a responsibility to end the funding for the war."
Kennedy continued with this beauty: He [Bush] ought to come to Congress. The burden is on him. We are offering an alternative policy. They don't have an alternative policy. We have an alternative that will supply some training and diplomacy which they haven't tried.
Bill Kristol once again was on top of his game: "It's so irresponsible that they [Democrats] can't just be quiet for six or nine months." Geez, Bill, why not just come out and say what you mean?
January 21 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 11
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | Senators John McCain (R), Edward Kennedy (D) | 1 | 1-2 | 9-29 | 31.03 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | Senators Joe Biden (D), Carl Levin (D); Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich (R) | 2 | 2-3 | 13-30 | 43.33 |
| This Week (ABC) | New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D), Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) | 1 | 1-2 | 16-31 | 51.61 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | Senator Chuck Hagel (R) | 1 | 1-1 | 9-21 | 42.86 |
| Total for week, all shows (11 weeks) | all guests | 5 | 5-8 | 47-111 | 42.34 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Labels: Bill Kristol, Iraq, John McCain
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Sunday Talk Shows Scoreboard for January 14
Notes on the Shows (Jan. 14): Considering the significant events of the week, the shows had relatively little new to offer, continuing a trend towards total insignificance. Naturally, Stephen Hadley had little new to offer - as did VP Cheney - beyond a selling of the President's plan for escalation.
A couple of Cheney's quotes should be challenged, however, especially, that the plan "...was embraced by [Generals] Abizaid and Casey," and "We consulted with over 120 members of Congress."
The VP should be reminded that consultation is a far different matter than dictation, which is more along the lines of what the administration did on the troop surge plan.
The most absurd line of the week goes to William Kristol, who said on FOX News, "I think the American people would like to see reinforcements sent to win the war." Obviously, Mr. Kristol is reading poll data upside down.
Overall, the non-progressives won the week on the talk shows handily. The big debate will come within weeks and months in the Congress, with votes on, first, a non-binding resolution, then on $6 billion in funding for the troop surge, and later on appropriations for the overall war effort for fiscal 2008 (beginning in September 2007), estimated at between $100 and $160 billion. There should be ample time for debate and resolution. In the meantime, it's plain and evident that the American people are being ignored and short-changed and the military is slowly being ground down by a losing strategy and no clear plan for either victory or withdrawal.
January 14 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 10 - January 14
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
A couple of Cheney's quotes should be challenged, however, especially, that the plan "...was embraced by [Generals] Abizaid and Casey," and "We consulted with over 120 members of Congress."
The VP should be reminded that consultation is a far different matter than dictation, which is more along the lines of what the administration did on the troop surge plan.
The most absurd line of the week goes to William Kristol, who said on FOX News, "I think the American people would like to see reinforcements sent to win the war." Obviously, Mr. Kristol is reading poll data upside down.
Overall, the non-progressives won the week on the talk shows handily. The big debate will come within weeks and months in the Congress, with votes on, first, a non-binding resolution, then on $6 billion in funding for the troop surge, and later on appropriations for the overall war effort for fiscal 2008 (beginning in September 2007), estimated at between $100 and $160 billion. There should be ample time for debate and resolution. In the meantime, it's plain and evident that the American people are being ignored and short-changed and the military is slowly being ground down by a losing strategy and no clear plan for either victory or withdrawal.
January 14 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 10 - January 14
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Senators Christopher Dodd (D), Joe Lieberman (D-I), Chuck Hagel (R), John Kyl (R) | 2 | 2-5 | 8-27 | 29.63 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | VP Dick Cheney | 0 | 0-1 | 11-27 | 40.74 |
| This Week (ABC) | Stephen Hadley, Rep., John Murtha (D), Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) | 1 | 1-3 | 15-29 | 51.72 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | Senators Barak Obama (D), John McCain (R) | 1 | 1-2 | 8-20 | 40.00 |
| Total for week, all shows (10 weeks) | all guests | 4 | 4-11 | 42-103 | 40.78 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Labels: Dick Cheney, FOX News Sunday, Iraq, William Kristol
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bush to America: SCREW YOU!
The president ignores voters, world opinion and expands the war. Impeachment is clearly now a viable option.
We all saw the president on the tube last night. Well, those of us who give a damn saw him and heard his speech. For those misinformed and disinterested few, here's a rough rundown of Mr. Bush's new strategy for Iraq:
Bush simply does not get it. 80% of the American public now favors a reduction of the number of troops in Iraq and either a phased or immediate pull-out. The president has purposely misread or ignored the historic vote of November 7, 2006 which put Democrats in power in the legislative branch.
In calling for an immediate escalation of the war, the president wants us to believe that he can see the future. The following excepts from his speech offer an opportunity to see what the president believes and just about how far detached from reality he is.
Well, here we see that the president's future vision is a little blurry. In fact, it was dead wrong, begging the question, why should we believe his prognostications now? Like...
Why should we believe him now? This is the same president who said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there weren't. He told us that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear arsenal to use against us when he wasn't. He assured us that Republicans would retain power in the Congress prior to the last election. He was wrong.
Mr. Bush does not have a crystal ball; at least not one which works. Mr. Bush's vision of the future is clouded by a failed ideology, an intractable, unyielding personality and a desire to shape history in a deeply bewildered invention of his own imagination.
Bush's faulty thought processes have brought us nothing but anguish and defeat. His presidency is a mockery and a slap in the face of a once-distinguished office. He is derided by foreign leaders, uncompromising in the face of overwhelming public and private opinion, and has routinely compromised the office, the Constitution and the will of the American people.
Mr. Bush will not back down from any fight, no matter the odds, and he has proved to be more than willing to spill any amount of American blood and treasure to ensure that his misguided vision of the future is fulfilled. No cost is too high for this charlatan. No war too expensive nor too tragic; no single life to sacred to not be spared in his quest for satisfaction.
Bush has gone too far, not only this time, but in the past as well. The American public is well beyond giving him a second, third or fourth chance and it is up to the newly-convened Congress to repudiate and correct the president's mistakes.
That begins with denial of funding for any further escalation of this war and it ends with a comprehensive plan to end our engagement in Iraq. If the president does not understand that we must end our involvement in Iraq - and he clearly does not - then he must be impeached, not for being stubborn, unruly or oppositional, but for failing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as he swore to do in taking his oath of office.
We all saw the president on the tube last night. Well, those of us who give a damn saw him and heard his speech. For those misinformed and disinterested few, here's a rough rundown of Mr. Bush's new strategy for Iraq:
- Send 20,000 more troops into and around Baghdad
- Send another carrier strike group into the Persian Gulf
- Threaten the Maliki government
- Ostracize and isolate Iran and Syria
- Ignore the wishes of the American people
- Start a major fight with Congress
Bush simply does not get it. 80% of the American public now favors a reduction of the number of troops in Iraq and either a phased or immediate pull-out. The president has purposely misread or ignored the historic vote of November 7, 2006 which put Democrats in power in the legislative branch.
In calling for an immediate escalation of the war, the president wants us to believe that he can see the future. The following excepts from his speech offer an opportunity to see what the president believes and just about how far detached from reality he is.
We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made.
Well, here we see that the president's future vision is a little blurry. In fact, it was dead wrong, begging the question, why should we believe his prognostications now? Like...
Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
...the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival.
The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren.
...we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
Why should we believe him now? This is the same president who said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there weren't. He told us that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear arsenal to use against us when he wasn't. He assured us that Republicans would retain power in the Congress prior to the last election. He was wrong.
Mr. Bush does not have a crystal ball; at least not one which works. Mr. Bush's vision of the future is clouded by a failed ideology, an intractable, unyielding personality and a desire to shape history in a deeply bewildered invention of his own imagination.
Bush's faulty thought processes have brought us nothing but anguish and defeat. His presidency is a mockery and a slap in the face of a once-distinguished office. He is derided by foreign leaders, uncompromising in the face of overwhelming public and private opinion, and has routinely compromised the office, the Constitution and the will of the American people.
Mr. Bush will not back down from any fight, no matter the odds, and he has proved to be more than willing to spill any amount of American blood and treasure to ensure that his misguided vision of the future is fulfilled. No cost is too high for this charlatan. No war too expensive nor too tragic; no single life to sacred to not be spared in his quest for satisfaction.
Bush has gone too far, not only this time, but in the past as well. The American public is well beyond giving him a second, third or fourth chance and it is up to the newly-convened Congress to repudiate and correct the president's mistakes.
That begins with denial of funding for any further escalation of this war and it ends with a comprehensive plan to end our engagement in Iraq. If the president does not understand that we must end our involvement in Iraq - and he clearly does not - then he must be impeached, not for being stubborn, unruly or oppositional, but for failing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as he swore to do in taking his oath of office.
Labels: Bush, Iran, Iraq, Maliki, troops
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The President's Poor Choices
Sometimes you just have to sit back and smell the roses. And from where I'm sitting, the roses couldn't smell any sweeter for Democrats - and any more putrid for Republicans - in 2007.
Despite protestations from the war party, a new era of governing from a progressive agenda begins in just one week as the candidates elected in November are officially sworn in on January 4. In the House of Representatives, Democrats will hold a hefty advantage of 233-202 over their Republican counterparts, while the Senate will also swing marginally to the Dems, 51-49, though the accurate count is 49-49-2. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont are technically Independents, though both have said publicly that they will caucus and vote with the Democrats.
When the 110th Congress convenes, on one side of the aisle you will have embattled Republicans, ostensibly tied to their most visible leader, President George W. Bush, and Democrats committed to restoring respectability and responsibility after 12 years of Republican rule.
What Bush decides about the War in Iraq and how he will handle bills that reach his desk - notably a minimum wage increase and a rollback of the tax breaks doled out to major oil companies in 2005 - will weigh heavily on the Republicans.
If, as he has hinted recently, the president decides to send more troops to Iraq, the fallout could be severe and lead to impeachment. Equally certain in that scenario is that some Republican lawmakers will take pains to distance themselves from Mr. Bush as the mood of the people is for a reduction in troop levels leading to eventual disengagement.
If the president does an about-face and actually begins to draw down troop levels (unlikely), this will be seen as a preemptive win for the Democrats and set the Republicans back on their heels.
Bush has shown that he is neither a man of high principles nor deep convictions, but more of a political animal than any president since... well, since Bill Clinton. With his options constrained, the troop level choices for Bush range from bad to worse.
Either way, the Democrats win. Many on the left hope that Bush will suddenly see the light and begin backing out of Iraq while others hope he digs in his heels and fights on, ordering more troops into the fray, because that will accelerate the Democrats' agenda and sink Bush into a precarious position, teetering on forced removal from office by impeachment.
If Bush announces that his new plan calls for a "surge" in troops to secure Baghdad, the opposition will be swift and loud. A recent AP-Ipsos poll found that only 27% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq - a new low. With those kinds of numbers staring him in the face, Bush might as well throw political expediency out the window and do either what he likes or what will actually improve the situation in Iraq.
Sadly, the president doesn't listen to critics, nor does he accept cogent advice, as evidenced by his light handling of the ISG report released earlier this month which called for eventual troop redeployment, engagement with Syria and Iran in seeking a solution and offered the Bush administration somewhat of an easy way out.
As much as I hate to see it, I'm hoping that the president announces his "new way forward" as the "surge" strategy, because committing more troops to Iraq will anger the American people, amplify the debate and hasten his - and VP Dick Cheney's - removal from office.
Critics of the impeachment push will argue that it's wrong for America, that we've been through enough already and that we need to move on, but they fail to see the value of restoring the values and principles of our Constitution and that begins with investigating and trying those who failed to uphold it - the Bush administration.
That Bush, Cheney, et. al. broke the law is not a matter for debate. On which charges they will be tried, is. Bush, Cheney and their lackeys have committed a myriad of unlawful acts, told a boatload of lies and have squandered and/or stolen the nation's treasure. Impeachment is not a means of reprisal; it is the only just resolution to this administration's high crimes and misdemeanors.
Despite protestations from the war party, a new era of governing from a progressive agenda begins in just one week as the candidates elected in November are officially sworn in on January 4. In the House of Representatives, Democrats will hold a hefty advantage of 233-202 over their Republican counterparts, while the Senate will also swing marginally to the Dems, 51-49, though the accurate count is 49-49-2. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont are technically Independents, though both have said publicly that they will caucus and vote with the Democrats.
When the 110th Congress convenes, on one side of the aisle you will have embattled Republicans, ostensibly tied to their most visible leader, President George W. Bush, and Democrats committed to restoring respectability and responsibility after 12 years of Republican rule.
What Bush decides about the War in Iraq and how he will handle bills that reach his desk - notably a minimum wage increase and a rollback of the tax breaks doled out to major oil companies in 2005 - will weigh heavily on the Republicans.
If, as he has hinted recently, the president decides to send more troops to Iraq, the fallout could be severe and lead to impeachment. Equally certain in that scenario is that some Republican lawmakers will take pains to distance themselves from Mr. Bush as the mood of the people is for a reduction in troop levels leading to eventual disengagement.
If the president does an about-face and actually begins to draw down troop levels (unlikely), this will be seen as a preemptive win for the Democrats and set the Republicans back on their heels.
Bush has shown that he is neither a man of high principles nor deep convictions, but more of a political animal than any president since... well, since Bill Clinton. With his options constrained, the troop level choices for Bush range from bad to worse.
Either way, the Democrats win. Many on the left hope that Bush will suddenly see the light and begin backing out of Iraq while others hope he digs in his heels and fights on, ordering more troops into the fray, because that will accelerate the Democrats' agenda and sink Bush into a precarious position, teetering on forced removal from office by impeachment.
If Bush announces that his new plan calls for a "surge" in troops to secure Baghdad, the opposition will be swift and loud. A recent AP-Ipsos poll found that only 27% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq - a new low. With those kinds of numbers staring him in the face, Bush might as well throw political expediency out the window and do either what he likes or what will actually improve the situation in Iraq.
Sadly, the president doesn't listen to critics, nor does he accept cogent advice, as evidenced by his light handling of the ISG report released earlier this month which called for eventual troop redeployment, engagement with Syria and Iran in seeking a solution and offered the Bush administration somewhat of an easy way out.
As much as I hate to see it, I'm hoping that the president announces his "new way forward" as the "surge" strategy, because committing more troops to Iraq will anger the American people, amplify the debate and hasten his - and VP Dick Cheney's - removal from office.
Critics of the impeachment push will argue that it's wrong for America, that we've been through enough already and that we need to move on, but they fail to see the value of restoring the values and principles of our Constitution and that begins with investigating and trying those who failed to uphold it - the Bush administration.
That Bush, Cheney, et. al. broke the law is not a matter for debate. On which charges they will be tried, is. Bush, Cheney and their lackeys have committed a myriad of unlawful acts, told a boatload of lies and have squandered and/or stolen the nation's treasure. Impeachment is not a means of reprisal; it is the only just resolution to this administration's high crimes and misdemeanors.
Labels: Bush, congress, Iraq, politics
