Do No Evil – George Bush and Co. making there own case for war. (not surprising) The main stream media and press failed to do its own job.(not surprising) Members of congress failing to put the two together. (also not surprising) But how the American people can tolerate being lied to at worst and at minimum, misled. Makes you wonder if the American people can
"Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Graham requested that the Bush administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq. But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion."
Why, this story and ones like it, just did not get the attention they deserved.
Thank you for posting this. We need more journalists who will tell the truth. Unfortunately, you will probably not see the truth on corporate owned media, and certainly not on Fox.
Whatever happened to those rules about consolidation of the media?
And where is our Congress. It seems they spend there time collecting contributions for the next elections and the real issues be damned.
As Eisenhower said, we need an informed citizenry. And we need it NOW.
And we need it NOW.>>>>>
PBS is as close to informing us as we'll get. People need to contribute to them, because if they're gone, we have nothing. (And the CONS have been trying to dismantle PBS).
rich4810
"Clinton administration was the first to cut the spending on PBS.Your own Liberal King himself.Go back about 10yrs and re-educate."
I was able to find that Congress in 1994 wanted to cut there
funding, but never did.
Show us proof of your statement please.
However I was able to find this!
House Committee Cuts CPB Funding
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/7/2006
"Suggesting the cuts could threaten the news, local programming or even the survival of 200 TV and radio stations, public broadcasters fired back at the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday, which voted to cut $115 million from the federal appropriation for noncommercial broadcasting, a 23% cut in the 2007 appropriation.
The appropriation is administered by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Included in the cuts is funding for the DTV transition, all the money for the Ready To Learn program, whose funding of Postcards From Buster caught flack last year in a highly public funding fight, as well as the Ready to Teach complementary effort targeted at teachers."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6341676 Breaking News
You better check again there Jordan,the Clinton administration was the first to cut the spending on PBS.Your own Liberal King himself.Go back about 10yrs and re-educate.>>>>
Actually, he wasn't the 'first', and the CONS were after stopping all funding, not just cutting funding. In fact, they've been working especially hard trying to do that for the last 6 years. When their phone lines in DC jammed from very p*ssed off taxpayers, they backed down on the first try.
From Amazing1: "Whatever happened to those rules about consolidation of the media?"
The Reagan administration dismantled all laws governing ownership of media. Prior to that, there were strict federal guidelines which prevented the present system of just THREE individuals (all Republicans, by coincidence?) owning all commercial media outlets. Reagan also deregulated energy...saying in his speech that it "would lower the prices and increase the supply" The OPEC cartel ALWAYS has controlled the supply, and you know what has happened to prices. Reagan knew what he was doing, because, don't forget, Reagan, just like Bush, had lots of campaign finance favors from big oil to pay back. The national debt also spiraled out of control during the Reagan era...he, like Dumbya, promised smaller government and increased it exponenially.
We need a return to the USA we once were!!!!!
1847
Zeigfield,
You to live here in the UK.
Then you would realy know how a government lies, spins and avoids the truth.
Iraq along with Afganistan to the Blair government was ment to top Thatcher and the Falklands. Well they succeded by lying.
Our troops are under equiped, inadequetly supplied, etc. We even have to borrow amo from you guys.
If you want to live in an honest Democracy, don't come here.
Jerry
The problem with the mainstream media is that the president has cut access to those who have published bad stories about his administration. That is why we have to have Public Broadcasting. Their access to the president has been extremely limited because of their publishing facts that the president didn't like. And, yet they still present one of the most unbiased looks at our country from both inside and out.
That is the problem with the current administration is that they are vindictive.
Hang Saddam, Hang Bush!
Hmm,sounds like you wish we were in Sadam's Iraq where dissenting views can be eradicated....otherwise, why the cynical reference to "isn't it nice tolive in a country where you can say that.."..I mean if we have to start comparing ourselves to Sadam's Iraq, then our standards have dropped
Ironically this is a thread on issues sorrounding media censorship
We're still waiting for your biased examples from PBS Rich...
It's funny how you sound and act exactly the way you accuse liberals of, but worse. This coward blocked me by the way because after one searing letter of reality, he went crying home to his mum. Guess no one likes hearing the truth. Your own president started this crap by calling Americans who didn't support his lies un-American, so suck it up, you are responsible for it.
MP - when the Constitution was a respected document, when freedom of speech meant just what it says; not freedom to speak as long as you agree with me, when voicing real concern about your governments actions would not be considered traitorous. When Americans were not defending spying on other Americans with statements like, 'if you have nothing to hide, why worry?' When war heros of either party are trashed to allow a non server to become our President; a man who has never released all his records. Congree at least tried to work together for some mutual good. (OK, probably not a lot of tht but better than it is today with them serving themselves - not us.)
The corporations have always been there but seem to have mor einfluence under this administration. (Opinion)
ciao
Its sad you blame bush for the war, yet leave out the fact MANY dems in office are to blame too...pathetic.
You are CRAZY! Bush pushed this war past congress by telling everyone that you are a terrorist if you don't vote for it to go through. Bush and his administration pushed the war past the UN without heeding their warnings. Bush and his administration pushed the war by the American people by lying through that disgusting display by Colin Powell.
No one but George W. Bush is to blame for this war. PERIOD!
No one but George W. Bush is to blame for this war. PERIOD!>>>>
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Congress was afraid for its political life to deny bush what he wanted. Americans were afraid, and fear can cause people to agree to some unseemly things. The media didn't challenge bush, other than PBS (and they were right), and a few journalists who had their copy hidden in the back pages. The all out propaganda campaign of bush and co was very sophisticated and effective. But Congress-people are grown ups, with significant responsibilities, and they should have done a better job of oversight, regardless of their personal fears of losing the next election. My Congresswoman voted against giving bush the power to invade Iraq, as did a few others. What did they see that so many missed? My question is, have they learned anything from this?
How refreshing to see a story that is neither bashed by logic or sincere rhetoric of the left or right. As a staunch independent who votes and develops opinions based on the issues at hand, I for one appreciate the article posted. President Bush has been a detriment to the values that America has earned over the years. The one analogy that I can finalize with is the Fall of the Roman Empire. President Bush and his inner circle of corrupt officials and corporate greed will at least ensure themselves, as Congress has, a bright and rich future for themselves.
We did not connect the dots to stop 9/11. The government connected dots to conclude a WMD threat from Iraq and this threat was discredited after invasion. All other rationales were ignored. The voices of opposition in the UN were discredited when it was found they were corrupted with an oil for food scandal. When a lot of people believed there was a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11, the press appeared to have failed to inform the public. Now we supposed to believed the lie that the Bush administration claimed a direct Iraq and 9/11 connection. Now with less evidence, we are told by the internet to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.
The disputes over WMD have long since come out. Even government funded TV has covered this. Bush was wrong and right about many things and stood to account in 2004. History will judge.
We can cherry pick history to create our own version of events. The main stream press has been a joke for 25 years. This web site is a joke.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
getbackerzoo
sterlingburt19681962
hyooo25
asolious
darwinm701977
romeohoover1968
MaryLynn_
stwor
lovingu
Macas
jcolman
TGrass3001
DesertFlower
somecommonsense
texangelwings
Beeboppin71
JeffL
anarchy
JaneMay
patriotadams
questionseverything
greenmac
Gabe_Damage
sailr
JJTopp
nightrider5169
cyclo
Solomon
hiroshi1010
focuspuller
haroldandfuzzy
Gulliver
not2needy
LindaLee
AnOldRooster
johnny420
Dave59
Teech
Progressive Bum
Helixbuilder
dextrase
LeftTurn
Luscous
okra
jehovahjones
Dave53
mamasan
LumFan
1basque1
uncleT
148)
The complicity of the main stream press has more to do with dismantling our democracy then even George W. Bush.
Some of us have held the belief, as I do, the fourth unofficial branch of government that also provides an invaluable set of checks and balances is the media.
Due to mergers and consolidation, corporate control of the media has led to the break down of true investigative reporting and the ability for Americans to get different perspectives on the news leaving Washington has been severely compromised.
This is an excellent story. Thanks spkguy!
You have hit the nail squarely on the head, spadecaller. If the media had not abandoned its true calling, investigative journalism, the Bush-Rove alliance would not have been so succeesful. In fact, they probably wouldn't hasve made it to Washinngton. But due to all the mergers, we get the likes of Fox News and a few others spreading the White House word and spinning the news in Bush's favor.
It was recognizable, years ago, that the main street press had left its roots of investigative reporting. That's when I turned to PBS, and began making yearly donations to help keep them going. STILL, Americans turn to CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc., for their information, and many feel that if they don't report it, it isn't true. VERY scary that we've put that kind of trust into the hands of a few. Scarier still, that some won't even consider information outside of our media to be viable.
I could feel the concern and frustration of that reporter coming through the 'you tube' video. What's the tipping point to get people to pay attention further than clicking on the 6:00 news?
Put your money where your mouth is. Give examples of their bias. As they have manuscripts on their site @ pbs.org, it will be easy for you to check out. I look forward to your examples.
Actually, what he says is easily disproved by simply listening to NPR or watching PBS TV for an hour or two. As anyone who has done that can tell you, they are far more balanced than anything else on the dial, both in terms of their guests (many right-wing menmbers of congress and the executive branch are regulars, and are treated with far more respect and deference than anywhere else on the dial, as are those on the other end of the sprectrum) and even of their selection of stories. Those who usually claim PBS is biased are generally unaware of the shows that have elevated the current lights of the right-wing media to their current positions in the public eye. The complaints about bias are not really made by serious people who have studied the issue; it's generally more a matter of idle blather.
Actually, what he says is easily disproved by simply listening to NPR or watching PBS TV for an hour or two.>>>>
I know, but he won't watch or listen.
"The complaints about bias are not really made by serious people">>>>
I know, but looking at the last two elections, we have waaaay too many 'not serious' people. Maybe he'll take a look at pbs.org, and be a convert. Who knows.
So let me get this strait. Because they are,(PBS) and for the most part publicly funded, you place no value in there news reporting, and in turn totally dismiss it.
I don't by that logic, because the truth should be
non-partisan.
rich4810, did you even watch it?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-jun
This is a link to one of the PBS interviews on the case for the Iraq war. It isn't biased, the questions are all relavant, and it gives both pro's and cons for the evidence bush & co presented. The experts are all credible. The case for the 'aluminum' tubes is discussed, and clearly shows that experts were not in agreement that they could be used for nuclear material. Despite that disagreement, Rice went before the American people, and used them as a reason to prove Hussein was advancing his nuclear program.
rich4810
Where all waiting!
where are your examples of there bias.
He didn't watch it nor does he have examples. He is doing like most of the cons do when there is an article posted regarding their God Bush, he jumped in, spewed rhetoric that he thought made him look informed and intelligent, and when called to put his money where his mouth was he ran like the scared dog he is.
Who even listens to the remarks of thoes that compare bush with saddam!
Qldone, who are referring to?
Saddam was an intelligent,sociaopath and Bush is an incompetent, self centered, self rightious, corporate pimp. Not much to compare.
Bought by corporations. Do you think the outlets that are completely owned by corporations have more leeway to air what they please? The facts that are reported by the PBS's are called biased by you because the actual facts very very rarely support the bogus Bush agenda.. rich you can't possibly believe what you posted.