Try speaking English and typing a coherent sentence if you would like a response.

Which mess are you referring? Bush did not create the liberal media - which is what I thought we were discussing.

Obama should go and should have gone to Iraq long ago. Why? Because you can get a visual and a reality check being there personally than you ever will through a report or a hearing.

MSNBC, Leaning Left And Getting Flak From Both Sides
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; C01

MSNBC, which bills itself as "the place for politics," is being pummeled by political practitioners.

"It's an organ of the Democratic National Committee," says Steve Schmidt, a senior strategist for John McCain's campaign. "It's a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain."

Ed Gillespie, President Bush's counselor, says there is an "increasing blurring" of the line between NBC News and MSNBC's "blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann."

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, says Matthews has been "in the tank" for Barack Obama "from Day One" and is practically "the Obama campaign chair."

Why are operatives from across the political spectrum suddenly beating up on the third-place cable channel? Phil Griffin, the NBC senior vice president who runs MSNBC, dismisses the criticism, calling Schmidt's broadsides "pretty outrageous accusations."

"To call us an arm of the DNC is a joke," he says. "We have people with multiple points of view. Everyone is getting a little thin-skinned. We argue and debate every topic."

The focus of the attacks is MSNBC's evening lineup, where the channel has clearly gravitated to the left in recent years and often seems to regard itself as the antithesis of Fox News. Schmidt, for instance, says he regards MSNBC's daytime reporting as fair, but that it would be "delusional" to view its nighttime operation as anything other than a "partisan entity."

NBC and its cable outlet have become more integrated since MSNBC moved to the 30 Rockefeller Plaza headquarters in New York last fall, a trend accelerated by the sharing of journalistic talent during the campaign. Some top NBC journalists say privately they are troubled by the overlapping identities.

Matthews, the voluble "Hardball" host, appears frequently on NBC's "Today," and Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief and "Meet the Press" moderator, is an increasingly visible presence on MSNBC. Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory, both well-regarded NBC correspondents, now anchor hour-long programs on the cable outlet. Gregory replaced Tucker Carlson, leaving former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough as the channel's only conservative host.

NBC News President Steve Capus says the distinctions between reporting and opinion are clear. "We happen to have programs that at times are driven by opinion on MSNBC, and we have a worldwide news organization driven by NBC News," he says. "The only people trying to lump it all together are people who tend to view these things through a political filter or are our competitors."

But news and opinion often seem to merge on primary nights. MSNBC's coverage is anchored by Matthews, a onetime Democratic operative, and Olbermann, the "Countdown" host who recently finished one anti-Bush commentary by instructing the president to "shut the hell up."

On election nights, Griffin says, Matthews and Olbermann "put on different hats. I think the audience gets it. . . . I see zero problem." MSNBC, he adds, offers "a little irreverence, entertainment, and sometimes it's even borderline dangerous."

Terence Smith, a former correspondent for CBS, PBS and the New York Times, says that "NBC Nightly News," for example, is far different from cable fare. "I don't believe Brian Williams's show reflects the attitudes and positions of Olbermann and Matthews and others on MSNBC," he says. "But it is potentially a perception problem. The public doesn't make a lot of distinctions between different arms of an organization."

As for Matthews and Olbermann, Smith says, "there's no confusion on 'Hardball' or 'Countdown' as to where they stand. They are and have been enamored of Obama from the beginning."

Scarborough, who hosts "Morning Joe," has been more sympathetic toward Clinton, while often criticizing the Republican Party he once represented in Florida.

The Obama campaign, for its part, has not complained about MSNBC's coverage. "Has it been too pro-Obama? Absolutely not," says Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "When the cable news channels had wall-to-wall negative coverage about our campaign for weeks on end, we didn't think it was particularly fair, but we also didn't whine about it all the time."

Gillespie, who raised questions about the overlap between the networks in a letter to Capus, says in an interview: "The president is not covered on MSNBC, he's talked about on MSNBC," largely in unflattering terms. "It's an advocacy network, and they're free to say what they want."

Russert drew some flak for declaring on the night of the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina: "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one's going to dispute it." He notes that he made a similar declaration on NBC -- that Bill Clinton had the Democratic race wrapped up -- in 1992.

As Russert sees it, appearing on the cable channel "enhances" his reputation. "I don't do anything differently on MSNBC than I do on the network -- try to report and analyze as best I can," he says.

In the bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, MSNBC is widely viewed as being rough on Clinton. Matthews -- who said after one Obama speech that he "felt this thrill going up my leg" -- apologized in January for saying that Clinton owes her political career to the fact that "her husband messed around." Correspondent David Shuster, who recently began anchoring the 4 p.m. hour, drew a two-week suspension in February for questioning whether Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out" by her mother's campaign.

Griffin maintains that MSNBC has been "very fair" to Clinton, despite what he calls her "baggage." "Obama had a lot of early success, and that colored people's thinking," he says. "That was a newer story, a fresher story, and people locked onto it."

In a "special comment" Friday -- an occasional segment devoted to editorializing -- Olbermann denounced Clinton for mentioning the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy while talking about how past primary seasons have lasted through June. "This cannot be forgiven," Olbermann said, adding: "A politician, a person who can let hang in midair the prospect that she might just be sticking around, in part, just in case the other guy gets shot has no business being, and no capacity to be, the president of the United States."

Olbermann has also unloaded on the presumed Republican nominee, sometimes with the on-screen headline "Double Talk Express." When McCain missed a vote on legislation to expand educational benefits for veterans, Olbermann accused him of "political opportunism." When the Arizona senator suggested that as president he would regularly answer questions before Congress, Olbermann said: "John McCain would last 11 minutes doing it before he swore or punched somebody or stormed out or all three."

MSNBC's evening guest lineup adds to its left-leaning image. While Griffin proclaims, with some exaggeration, that "Pat Buchanan's on every show," that is in part because the former GOP presidential candidate is the channel's only regular conservative commentator. Such liberals as Air America host Rachel Maddow (an Olbermann substitute), Washington Post columnist Gene Robinson and Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter make frequent appearances. Olbermann generally does not book conservative or Republican guests, saying he doesn't want to stage "talking point" debates with liberal pundits.

In a further contrast to Fox, where former White House adviser Karl Rove is often the leadoff guest on nighttime shows, Dan Abrams, the host of MSNBC's "Verdict," spent half a program last week on a House committee's subpoena of Rove in a probe of political influence at the Justice Department.

NBC executives say the ratings growth at MSNBC -- up 61 percent this month in prime time, compared with a year ago -- has made it a target.

"It used to be people didn't have to worry about MSNBC because it was an also-ran cable channel," Capus says. "That's not the case anymore. With that is going to come more scrutiny, and we're ready for it."

You should go to Iraq also, Stevie!

You could bring-back all the good news that the "Liberal Media" has denied America.

If it were possible, I would. However, I'm not elected and don't have the "stroke" to go over there. However, my best friend served 6-7 tours over there and I think he has a little more grasp on the reality over there than you would. Sadly, it's people like you who don't want to hear any good news whatsoever coming from there. The more dead soldiers for people like you, the happier you are because in your warped view of things that emboldens your argument. People like you are more interested in bashing Bush and being "right" than wanting the best for your country. You really are the worst of the worst and I can only hope your insanity and stupidity remains limited to this forum.

NY POST EDITORIAL
IRAQ RISING

June 1, 2008 -- Iraqi security forces notched two huge gains in the last month, as violence in the country declined to a level not seen in more than four years.

In Baghdad, Iraqi troops moved nearly unopposed to take control of Sadr City, the redoubt of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army - and the scene of heavy street fighting when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stepped up his campaign against the militia in March.

Meanwhile, Iraqi and American forces in the northern city of Mosul encountered surprisingly little resistance in their push to drive Al Qaeda in Iraq from its last remaining base of operations.

All in all, according to Coalition spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, total insurgent attacks countrywide the week before last numbered just 300 - making it Iraq's most peaceful since March 2004.

The difference being that now Iraqis themselves are shouldering much of the security load.

Still, warned Driscoll, now's no time to "pop the champagne bottle" - even against Al Qaeda, which has gone from defeat to defeat ever since the once-maligned US troop surge began more than a year ago.

Though Sadr's decision to have his militia stand down is most likely a serious admission of weakness (he remains holed up in Iran), reports indicate that his "Mahdi Army" has managed to hang on to most of its weapons.

And Iran - which has no interest in a secure, independent and American-allied Iraq on its western border - doubtless still has cards to play, too.

Long story short: Iraq still has a long road ahead of it - and everything could still fall to pieces if America loses its nerve.

But for Coalition forces - and, increasingly, their Iraqi allies - the rewards of perseverance have been manifest.

And that's grounds for serious hope.

Promoting the 'DEFENSE' of this nation....IS NOW A BAD THING? There you go again, "making implications". Just because you opine that our sitting President is a bad leader because he leads in way different than what you are "told" he should have led....EVERYONE MUST AGREE WITH YOU even though you have presented NOTHING new under the sun that has not been beaten like a dead horse over the past few years? It seems that Mr. Bush has delivered "exactly" what he set out to deliver.....THE PROTECTION OF "WE THE PEOPLE". The proof is in the 19 attempted terrorist attacks on the Home Land that WAS NOT successful proves the ideology as the right course of action. Mistakes are made in any conflict...name one in which there have been no MISTAKES. But, this does not preclude the ideology that CONSERVATISM and aggressive search and destroy tactics have produced the stated OBJECTIVE.....PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES by the method of HOME LAND SECURITY. Show me, just one example, where this system has failed to stop our security from being breeched....even show me JUST ONE example of where someone has suffered due the methods used by home land security...besides the enemies of this nation. Produce your reasons and justify your obvious hatred of AMERICA and MR. BUSH........or not, you can simply go about parroting what you are "TOLD" by the manipulators standing behind the curtain that you call your life. YOU REPRESENT NOTHING BUT SHEEP BEING LED TO SLAUGHTER, when are you going to start thinking for yourself? Anyone that blindly stands behind a political ideology instead doing what is correct for their nation are as such. Research, and accept the TRUTH....no matter where it falls or whose head it lands on. And the truth is, the system and methodology that has been demonstrated over the past 7+ years WORKS.....and the results of having our HOMELAND SECURED from attack offer the proof of this. You can BITCH AND WHINE all you want about the method...BUT YOU SURE AS HELL CAN NOT BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT THE RESULTS. Demonstrate the proof of just how many people within the borders of these United States that have fallen victim to those that have declared war upon the us, you can count them on your digits. The results speak for themselves. BD

More of your bullshit claims that you failed to substantiate in the past and will no doubt continue to do so in the future no matter how many times I might ask.

As I mentioned in the other thread...deja vu all over again...you are using the same tactics that I have had to deal with from others in the past...I provided clear and concise examples that made my case and showed you to be the fool that you are so you run off from there and come to another thread and jump into a conversation that you hadn't been involved in to pursue the same line of bullshit.

You want one example where people have suffered due to our "homeland security"...well dipstick, since you consider our aggressive actions in Iraq a part of that homeland security...how about the thousands of lives lost by our own...how about the tens of thousands of lives fubar'd by our own...how about an even bigger number of their family members who have suffered as well...you're probably one of those that support our troops but when it comes to looking at their losses fit along the lines of "fuck'em if they can't take a joke"...you're pathetic.

You say I am being "told" how to think...by whom? I was for going after those who attacked us but opposed all along going into Iraq...there were no Iraqi's who attacked us on 9/11...and if we were going to deal with Saddam we should not have diverted into the mess we are in today.

You say I offer nothing...try this on for size...

Here it is...something I wrote back in '04, before we got Saddam...

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

How do you get more "reliable" than a near "100%" protection rate of the American public? As I said, bitch, whine, cry....and OPINE, all you want, the success speaks volumes in the way the American people have been protected...even from themselves. As for me...enough politics and listening, or rather, reading about all the whining and gnashing of teeth....I am going FISHING, its a nice day to get out on the lake a "basK" in the freedom that our military and leadership have provided, have a good day BITCHING. As for me I shall get on with LIVING and worshiping in the "chosen" manner in which our freedoms allow. BD

Enjoy your day...I hope you have better luck fishing than you do coming up with a lucid argument.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT