There is no "liberal bias" in the media.

I didn't think it was "that bad" until the last election. When I saw/heard ALL the networks (with the exception of FOX and MSNBC) misreporting election results and almost willing John Kerry to win. There definitely IS a bias. Of course, every time I hear FoxNews say "fair and balanced" I want to punch the speaker as well.

Are you frigging kidding me? A liberal bias? I'm sorry but that's wrong. Where are you getting this stuff? They said kerry would win because that's what many exit polls said.

There is evidence in both the 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio) national elections, that there was poll tampering.

This whole Iraq War was cooked up and everyone knows it. As soon as there is oversight (Dems taking Congress) people keep stepping forward. Just look at Plamegate, Tenet and now this former British Intel Officer.

I'm surprised you loyalists don't question why Bush and Cheney did this. They are more criminal than the media for not investigating this in the first place.

This truly is worse than Watergate.

Fox, fox..tsk tsk..

I truly hope you are not one of those conspiraloons who see intrigue under every rock.. Bush Jr is a nice guy..not too bright..daddy's gene pool got thinned a little with the Shrub, but.. he's no Mysterioso nor is he a' puppet' in the hands of a deep dark secret cabal of industrial/military rapacious profiteers who exploited politics to make themselves multi-millionaires [ well maybe Cheney LOL ]

Dubya was the populist choice for Pres [ not the popular ] and you got to live with that in America.. every once in a while a less than brilliant guy makes it to the top of the pile.. then, again, even the smart ones [ Rhodes Scholar Billy Clinton ] can come up short from time to time..

The Press/Media is doing what it is supposed to.. take a jaundiced view of politics as automatically suspect [ aboslute power corrupts absolutely ] and take administrations to task when hinky things are spotted.. [ look back and you'll see the Democratic Presidents got their lambasting, too.. Jimmy Carter anyone? as a ferinstance ]

There is in America a vast Right Wing media, a strong Conservative [ both evangelical and secular ] movement with just as strong a voice and just a rabid a slant..

you choose to read only one side and dismiss FoxNews and its ilk as a inconsequential and laughable aberation..not so..

what is lacking in America, today is a MOTR [ MiddleOf The Road ]-centrist pragmatists who can see that mistakes may be made and work to correct them without caustic attacks on either side and name calling and, ultimately, ruining things by concentrating o bringing down the other side to get into power with no viable alternative to offer except we'll dismantle and rollback what the other guy has done and that will fix it all up ' stale point of view [ if you can call it that ]..

The decision to go into Iraq was the right one [ even the UN said so as did a large number of other countries ], the timing and the way [ poor planning mixed in with a bit of Rumsfeld hubris ] and the outcome wasn't thought through enough [ win the war but no plan for win the peace ]..

When the Republicans get turfed and the Democrats take over the Oval Office
[ Hllary? Obama?? some alsoran compromise?] watch them screw things up just as bad in ' getting out of Iraq ' with some integrity [ then the comparisons to Viet Nam may be allowable ] and watch the left-leaning media suddenly become rabid right wingnuts with their own agendae..

Fox.. read a damn book instead of the comics page..

quote:

Originally posted by Rocketeer:

The decision to go into Iraq was the right one [ even the UN said so as did a large number of other countries ], the timing and the way [ poor planning mixed in with a bit of Rumsfeld hubris ] and the outcome wasn't thought through enough [ win the war but no plan for win the peace ]..

Fox.. read a damn book instead of the comics page..

This is where I lost all respect for you.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz all planned this war before 9/11. They must be terrible for the job because only Bush and Cheney are left.

You can deny all you want, but the liberals were right about this war all along.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fox Mulder,

Ha! That's okay, Fox.. I never had any respect for you in the first place. LOL... Kofi can say all he wants.. hindsight is always 20/20..

lots of people were all behind the US move or were okay with slamming Sadaam in some way [ sanctions, isolation, fines , etc. etc. ] and were convinced he was hiding something [ maybe not WMD but close ] and the outcry against what the US did was not so much because they thought Hussein was a nice dictator but because of the way America handled the situation..

The very same bunch who back a bit yelled " Let's Go! Let's Do it! " are now the ones crying " I told you so.."

always the way..

problem now is how to fix things and make 'em right [ for everyone ] not cry and go home leaving a bigger mess for someone else to clean up..

I know that you don't respect me Rocketeer. You're like the 28% approval rating Bush.

Seems like you didn't even read the article. It was from 2004, not 2007.

No WMD's
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

The difference between you and me is that I have evidence and you do not.

Bush is going to leave this Iraq mess to the next President.

Foxy, luv.. I don't even live in the country so what Bush does or doesn't do don't bother me none [ unless it screws up other parts of the world ] so my ' approval rating' for Dubya is of no consequence.. and, gee, Fox.. what an eye opener.. one President leaving the screw ups and mess for the next guy to fix??
you mean that never happened before?? anywhere??

damn, all history must be a lie!!

I know you are the Spartacus-type, Rocketeer. Don't worry I won't tell too many.

The only reason you don't care what Bush does is because you're on one side of the world. That is not only ignorant, but stupid as well.

This happened during the Cold War a lot. But, there was a difference between withdrawal and escalation. JFK was assassinated but he wanted to withdraw troops from Vietnam. Johnson took over and escalated the war, another President from Texas.

There is a big difference between an assassination and an election.

History is distorted because it's only told by the winners and not by the losers as well.

Fox - even though I don't usualy agree with the Rocketeer on political views mainely because Canada's Politicans are quiet simlar to our Politicans and some times more extreme.As far as WMD's they have found some very good evidence of many diffrent kinds of WMDs Programs the Media and Liberal party has twisted it around to fit their agenda.Some people has no idea what WMD's even look like like and the presise amount of some of these Chemicals it takes it to destroy millions of people.I will repeat what I said before just because the Democrates didn't start this War don't make it un-justified.As far as your comment about Vietnam you are wrong again JFK took the High Road against his Advisors & CIA's and called for 10,000 more advisors I don't call that withdrawl.By the way there was no actual Combat Troops under JFK in Vietnam.

Fox;

enlighten me..

It was general knowledge that Sadaam Hussein was a rogue - sorry, so very un-PC of me - a potentially destablising element - in the Middle East hence GW 1 wherein he tried to appropriate Kuwait which resulted in his semi-chastisement by Bush 41 and others/allies..

it was also generally acknowledged that Sadaam had WMD [ i.e perhaps not nuclear, but definitely biological and chemical weapons ] since he admittedly and overtly used them against the Kurds and Shi'ites in Iraq - unrefutable one could say .

hence the many sanctions, restrictions the corrupted oil for food campaigns etc .etc..

the UN/World demanded that Sadaam divest himself of these items and attempted on many occasions to check to see if he did...Sadaam said he did, but, given his track record one could certainly harbour doubts.. and, joker that he was, Sadaam was not above keeping the rest of the world guessing while ' complying ' with the UN etc..and, indeed, mounted a campaign of deliberate obfuscation to make the world think he might still have the stuff just to make himself look big in the eyes of his friends and allies..one could easily see [ well, at least I could, among others, maybe not astute little you ] where one could be mislead into thinking despite no evidence or scanty, circumstantial evidence, he might just have a tanker or two of nasty smelly stuff lying about as a ' last resort' kind of thing..

So, lo and behold.. antsy and perhaps pushing the envelope a bit, the US invades, with the help of a few other like-minded nations [ now dubbed in hindsight as gullible dupes of American imperialism or whatever ]..


Now, because America in its gung ho manner thought that the Hollywood image of the Marines would prevail, lead by that master tactician and strategist, Donald Rumsfeld who, apparently, knew more about warfare than the Joint Chiefs, they blasted their way into the country, swept all before them and erased the Iraqi military and Baathist political leaders sadly leaving a vacuum in government, security and infrastructure which, gee, invariably lead to the uprising of bandits, selfish tribalism, relgious and other bigotry running rampant as the controls had been lifted.. War was won , but no peace divident followed, corruption set in, inefficiencies and incompetence followed, revenge motivation took over and voila we have the morass that exists today..

not becasue America was wrong in the execution of its military objective but because there was no Marshall Plan for Iraq, no transition force, no retention of competent civil servants [ read about Gen. Patton when he was Pro-Consul of Bavaria.. he attempted to fix this problem but was overruled -result the same as today - though not as nasty as there weren't the number of factions as in Iraq ]

Now Dubya [ well his many ' partisan advisors ' if you will ] have suggested that he continue the format of dealing with factions, push for ' democracy [ American style ] and such and alternative scenarios have been dismaissed, sidelined or ignored as the Democrats would say [ or they could have been discussed and decisions made that they weren't viable or workable or whatever - not necessarily with any malicious intent ]..

When the Democrat President takes over and the US military is recalled and the ' democratic ' Iraqi government falls to sectarian interests and the Middle East collapses into another morass, then I'm sure the Dems will have an alternative solution to that problem which will be dismissed and derided by the Republicans and after the Republicans win the next election and get back into power then they'll have yet another plan..

and so it will go.. law of averages says one of the plans should work..

of course, you could save us all that grief by giving us your plan to solve this, bring the soldiers home and stabilize Iraq, or at least point us to the website that holds the answers..

Ever heard the phrase keep it simple stupid? I wonder how many words you looked up to make yourself look smart.

We've been there almost 5 years, no evidence has ever turned up that Saddam was making WMD's.

This is a hurting stalemate (Civil War) with an occupation of American forces, nothing more, nothing less.

You are already wrong on the comparisons. The Democrats after WW2 kept the infrastructure of the countries in Europe. While the Republicans in Vietnam took out the infrastructure. Look at the regions now. Europe is thriving and Southeast Asia is still down.

I wouldn't call Bush and Rummy military tacticians. They essentially planned this occupation in 2 days, compared to 2 years with FDR did with Nazi Germany.

Bring the soldiers home and stablize Iraq? Iraq was never stable under US anyways. This dog and pony show is only a cover for a Civil War. Everyday more and more troops and Iraqi civilians die. We all know this is a Civil War let it be.

Speaking of doing something right. What about Darfur? Think about if Clinton had not done something in Somalia. The Republicans would've been all over him. Now these same ignorant people would rather watch genocide in Sudan and see their failed plan in Iraq.

You have one huge problem about the elections. The do-nothing Republican Congress accomplished nothing in 128 days in 6 years of power. The Democrats with oversight will work more days in one year than the Republicans worked in 6. That's pathetic, and why the American people voted them out.

Fox:

sticks and stones.. you know nothing of me

sorry if my vocabulary use intimidates you...

US/Allies kept the infrastructure in Europe after WWII?
well, duh!.. same thing in Iraq! only they went about removing every Baathist civil servant and stuck in others who knew nothing about running anything [ not their fault ] which left a vast learningcurve open to abuse among other trhings.. -- BTW same thing in many parts of Europe back in the day.. Allies were determined to cancel thetickets on ' Nazi" and " Vichy " civil types who hadtojoin the party to have a job and went about trying to replace them all with ' clean ' folk.. creating a massive upheaval and problems.. thing was, though, that the allies had a massive militayr/civilian authority presence there after the conflict.. almost as many -virtually the same- as during the fighting to keep controls in place.. and another duh!!.. the people in Europe they were 'controlling ' were of the same Judeo-Christian ethic [ not to be puting a racist spin on things ] as the ' conquerer/liberators so the concepts and precepts for things were similar..
America had really no concept of what it means to be Muslim - ethnically, culturally, religiously..etc.. going in and that ignorance is what's causing problems now..

As for any one party running things well.. or doingthings right.. well we could be slingingexamples of " good and bad " Dems/Republicans all day.. there were good and bad governments all through American history and elesewhere..
people is what people does..

let's do try and keep the debate to the facts and leave personal insults to the minimum - I'll forgive you this time as you're a] new here and b] I'm an old guy who doesn't give a sh*t what you say 'cause its the internet and nutters are all around..

As a P.S. Fox:

How long were the US/Allies in Europe and Japan after the conflict helping to re-establish failed economies and infrastructure? [ let's not forget, too, that these countries were homogeneous entities without significant minority/ethnic diversity -Iraq is a ' cobbled together' entity - blame the Brits for that one ]

How long had the US been in Iraq ' after the conflict '?

Germany/Japan didn't have millions of barrels of oil to exploit - the economy was far more diverse and the trade and other ' incentives 'far more varied and diffuse ..


and the ' imposition government ' though seeking private/commercial asistance.. didn't have anything like the ' public/private ' partnerships and the intrusion of private/commercial interests involved in the ' re-developement ' - in this case actually during the active conflict - [ 70,000 ' private security/for hire mercs who the people of the region do not see as 'different ' from official US government ]. far more ' doable ' dollars flowed into rebuilding WWII than is being spent in Iraq [ after taking out the costs of the ' occupation ' on military/policing. etc...]Giving the government in training millions and not overseeing how its spent was not the way things were done before and its showing in how things are ' falling into place' now..

In WWII Walmart/Starbucks/McD's wasn't part of official government policy [ though, I'll concede that Coke/Pepsi had their moments LOL ]

I can't wait to see how theDemocrats ' fix things' and how the Republicans will ' correct matters' when they return later to the White House..

rant away...

Mulder I assume the simple & stupid remark was in reply to my comments about WMD's I will return the complament I would say from reading your post you read only one side of a page.As far as Vietnam I doubt if you realy know very much about that either.You have a problem with the Republican Party if Clinton had taken care of buisness at the White House President Bush would not have to do what he did.I don't have to be very smart when I talk to a box of rocks.What bothers me is you are packing a Butterbars Avatar I hope you remove it soon and become a (D) Politican because you would fit a hell of a lot better than the US Military.

molder...define WMD for us please.

Nobody say ANYTHING until I get back. I'm out of pretzels and beer.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK, I'm set. Continue.

Sorry Gunny everybody's gone.

According to World Politics: The Menu for Choice 8th Ed.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Immensely destructive weapons, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, designed to distribute their effects over large areas.

I am going to keep the Butterbars, whether people like it or not.

Either Politics or Military is my goal after I graduate in a few years.