Presidential race coverage - John Edwards scandal raises questions

So we are in day what 6 now of the John Edwards sex scandal. Almost every angle of this story has been covered by the media by now, except one. One particular aspect of this case kept bugging me until today I noticed what it was.

The bias of the major news media.

Forget the fact that the 24-hour nature of news today means that cable news is more about a rush to ratings than journalism. Forget that a sex scandal is primetime news. Even forget that some Clinton supporters are trying to use their best polispeak to spin the idea that had this come out during the primaries Senator Clinton would have beat Senator Obama (a fallacy proved incorrect by polls showing an overwhelming number of Edwards supporters – then and now – prefer Obama).

The bias is of the major news media to protect and fail to report negatives of Democrats and Liberals, and to highlight the same type of actions of Republicans and Conservatives.

Senator Obama is unquestionably favored by the major news media. He has been since at least January of this year. And the news showers praise on his every move, covering his actions better than our current President in some instances. And the tone of all the coverage has been overwhelmingly positive.

But John Edwards was a liberal and Democrat as well. And his press was very good for quite a while. And to preserve the image of all liberals and Democrats the major news media ignored the news we now know to be true. It took the National Enquirer to break the story – though the rumor was around for months at least.

Think about that. All the news media knew of the rumor. Not one media outlet, except the Enquirer, bothered to follow-up anything, accepting the denial of John Edwards verbatim.

Yet the New York Times was more than willing to run a story alleging that Senator John McCain was cheating on his wife, without proof or even a rumor. Without anything to back up the story they sought to destroy the career of one politician while at the same time protecting another.

That’s not reporting, that’s creation of news. That’s manipulation of facts. That’s yellow journalism. And it’s an attempt to coerce voters to make a decision that the media industry prefers. So much for the rights of the public.

And the bias has more ramifications than just that. The major news media is effectively admitting that it changes the truth to suit their ends. So how much can you believe about what they have said about Iraq, Afghanistan, or nationalized healthcare? If they would bias the public to a position they prefer in one story, why not another – or a dozen?

Do I mean that there is news about Senator McCain or Senator Obama that we don’t know about right now, or that has been altered to fit their desires? I can’t say with 100% assurance. It is quite possible that the facts reported in the polispeak 10 second soundbites the media loves is accurate, or not even close to the truth. So we have to ask what is probable.

Well it is fact that the media loves Senator Obama. And his own words and speeches do sound quite good – in a general, unspecific, ultra-liberal manner. But given their bias as displayed by the disparity between similar accusations against Senator McCain and John Edwards I must pause.

Ask yourself these questions:

What has Senator Obama done to show he is a bi-partisan politician? Pundits laud his ability to work with Republicans, but where is that in his voting or Senate record?

What plans has Senator Obama actually provided on issues like funding for national healthcare, funding for Social Security, the consequences of leaving Iraq without a victory under preset timetables? The media has lauded that he is for all these items, but not mentioned how he will do them or what the effect will be.

The media has followed Senator Obama for months, like puppies around their master, but when was the last time he had an interview that seriously questioned any policy he has touched on? How many news organizations have pursued answers on issues that will affect America, like they have with Senator McCain?

I’m not saying that Senator Obama is a bad choice for President. I am saying that relying solely on the major news media to give an unbiased presentation is like handing an alcoholic a bottle of vodka and expecting them not to drink it. They might not, but I wouldn’t go to Las Vegas and take odds on it.

Oliver Stone - an ultra-liberal pissing on America - movie preview

It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?

Haditha Iraq - Marines innocence not worth of headlines

Code Pink must be angry, Moveon.org annoyed, and the New York Times is the usual indifferent paper that is common. Why are all these groups likely experiencing such emotions? Because yet again all their hype has been deflated in regard to Iraq, the Marines, and our Armed Forces.

Haditha Iraq. I’m sure even those casually paying attention to news noted the slew of articles and news reports condemning 8 Marines, alleging a murder of 24 Iraqi civilians. The comments came out before charges were made, and they all made their decision before facts were ever presented. Across the nation ultra-liberals rejoiced, and Hollywood used this story as fodder for its anti-war anti-American Armed Forces rants they called entertainment movies.

Even politicians jumped into the act, half-cocked.



NOTE that Congressman Murtha did not know any facts on the case. When confronted with information that radio communications and drone videos proved the charges false, he ignored it. He nearly implicates the Commandant of the Marine Corps in his lies and illogic. But when confronted on the veracity of what he alleged he admits that nothing like his claims were ever said. He like so many ‘honest’ ‘unbiased’ organizations has twisted facts for their own purposes.

Yet today marks the 7th Marine that was accused and eviscerated by the media and Congressman Murtha that has either had their charges dropped completely or been found innocent.

And for those that never served in the military, a court-marshal or any charges are presumed correct and the defendant guilty until proven innocent beyond doubt. Guilty until proven innocent beyond doubt. And 7 Marines have been proven innocent to date.

But have you seen that reported in the media? Have you seen any of the over 30 articles mentioning the innocence of these men or remorse for having besmirched their names and that of the Marine Corps?

How about Congressman Murtha, who had a lot to say on television and in Congress. What did he say when the Marines were being found innocent of his accusations and false charges?



Now some would say that I don’t know what I’m talking about. That the fact I was a Marine does not count, because I have not been fighting in Iraq. Only a wartime soldier would understand his views. Ok, then tell me why he can’t respond to this man.



Playing to the crowd? How could it not be more obvious that this is what he is doing?

But today there is even more room for the ‘unbiased’ media, Moveon.org, and Congressman Murtha to remain silent and stupid (in my opinion). And the fact that 7 out of 8 Marines have been exonerated beyond doubt has been reported.

Who presented the news that allowed me to share this revelation with you? Fox News. Funny how the one news source I am constantly told lies, is the only news organization that has covered fully the fact that these Marines are innocent. They are the only ones I have been aware of to question the accusations and smears these Marines have endured.

So I have just one question, based on the silence of Murtha and those like him do you think that if (and in all likelihood considering the 7 prior cases when) the final accused Marine is found innocent beyond any doubt they will publicly – as boldly and prominently as when they first opened their mouths without facts – apologize to these Marines and their families?

Hillary Clinton wanted to join the Marines, or was it the Army - 4.4.2008.1

So is it another lie coming out of the Hillary Clinton campaign, this one voiced by former-President Bill Clinton and virtually impossible to prove false. IF it is a lie, then it’s one of the better ones.

If you have not heard the comment it is

“I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 'Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,'" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.” – Bill Clinton in Columbus, Indiana

Opportunistic? Factual? Well let’s just check a few facts.

From what can be determined, Senator Clinton attempting to join the Armed Forces was mentioned once before, and only once before. That was back in 1994. And at that time she was purported to be trying to join the Marines. This was found dubious by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.

“The First Lady's cascading, contradictory images have been the subject of much commentary. This month's Mirabella magazine runs a dizzying array of different looking Hillary Rodham Clintons, to match her blur of different roles, with a story that frets: "We sense that we aren't seeing the 'real' Hillary, and this makes us very nervous.”

…

And it did not seem to fit in with the First Lady's own persona. After all, Hillary Rodham was an up-and-coming legal star involved with an up-and-coming political star. She had made a celebrated appearance in Life magazine as an anti-establishment commencement speaker at Wellesley College, where, as president of the student government, she had organized teach-ins on her opposition to the Vietnam War.

She was a Yale law school graduate who had worked on the anti-war Presidential campaigns of Eugene J. McCarthy and George McGovern.”

In addition this move to join some branch of the military took place just before October 1975, when she married Bill Clinton. How many brides-to-be do you know that jaunt off to the local recruiter asking to join up?

So we are left to wonder how true these statements, that were never uttered beyond these 2 times, are. One would expect that if they were true we might have heard about it during the 2 elections for Senate that Hillary went through. In the preparations and debates of 2007 it was never mentioned or alluded to. In the primaries and caucuses it has been unmentioned.

And we know this of the Clinton’s, things are not always as they state them.

From the famous re-definition of IS, to invisible snipers firing air bullets, to Hillary’s seldom used power to invoke peace during talks in Ireland – from a separate room from the discussion while having tea, to her ability to agree, disagree, and be indecisive all at once on the same question. The Clinton’s are remarkable in their power to reword and remake themselves in every situation they face.

But unlike her “misspoken” comments about Bosnia (polispeak for blatant lie that was caught publicly), this recollection and the prior comment in 1994 are basically impossible to disprove.

So it’s up to you. Do you think that this lawyer and wife to be, who had vehemently been against the war and military 3 years earlier, was willing to give up all those things to suddenly join a military that had few women and wanted fewer?

If so I have a bridge to sell you, if not what reason would you give to vote for a person willing to lie to the American public solely to gain the most powerful office of America?

MoveOn.org should not be forgotten - 10.2.2007.1

For all the talk and condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad personally attacking Gen. Petraeus, what affect does this all have on the Average Joe? Where does this entire fluster shake out? The Presidential election and the effects on the nation.

After 2 weeks of denials, the New York Times has finally admitted they broke their rules. This is a big deal. It’s not that the NY Times dropped the price of the ad some $70,000. MoveOn is funded by billionaire George Soros, they can afford whatever price the Times makes up. The question is whether the news organization is impartial, which this proves it is not. The paper broke rules against favoring a political party, running an attack ad, and several other regulations that the Times has in place for themselves. That’s a blatant move, and thus a virtually explicit declaration of ultra-liberal political affiliation.

Some could say that it’s not a big deal. News organizations tend to be liberal anyway. I disagree. Writers may or may not be liberal; a news organization should be neutral. This apparent declaration, which the Times tried to justify for 2 weeks, shows that they are not neutral and thus lie to the American people, as I conclude. It’s a strong conclusion I have come to, and if I am correct it means that every item reported about the President, national policies and international interactions may have been tainted. Imagine that, everything that the Times has said has been altered from the truth, either through omission of facts or editing of those facts, to make readers act in one manner or another.

Add to this the fact that not one of the Democratic Presidential candidates has made a single statement to condemn the ad and the problem grows. It’s not that they are breaking political ranks, this issue is beyond that. The Untied States Armed Forces are in place to protect EVERYONE, without regard to political affiliation or individual thoughts. Our soldiers die for the right to have ads, like the despicable MoveOn ad, to be able to appear without someone dying for it. A mere handful of countries can claim the same thing.

The ad attacked not just the General, but every American military person. To say that Gen Petraeus lied or betrayed the nation is to say that every soldier in his command did the same. It is to say that a temporary political point in time is more important than the lives and constitution he has sworn to uphold and protect. Considering his positive and well supported (by both parties) appointment, this questioning of loyalty is deeply misplaced.

What does it say when the potential next Commander-and-Chief has so little respect for the troops under their command that they will allow any attack upon them individually and as a whole. Yes, disrespect for the whole military. Gen. Petraeus did not leak out information or aide the enemy. He did not put our soldiers in harms way, or intentionally cause them to be killed. He has not reported lies or information that has not been confirmed and understood. He has not acted in any manner other than professionally and respectfully, even while his report given to Congress was questioned in its complete truth to his face.

I feel that a vote to not condemn personal attacks against our Armed Forces is a negative signal of what will come in the future. To vote against condemnation is to vote for the MoveOn ad. It’s a statement of no confidence in the military and a Commander-and –Chief must have faith in the military to command. Especially if that Commander has never spent one second in the Armed Forces.

Equally, the failure to vote either way is an act of cowardice in my opinion. Some issues are black & white. You either agree or disagree. To opt out is merely an attempt to play political games, seeking to keep funding without angering the general populace.

We need our leaders, and those who hope to become a leader, to state what they believe and to be accountable for that decision. If money, and political extremism, are the issues that they feel are most important we need to know that prior to an election. The repercussions are too dire to find out after the fact.

And to know that our news media organizations are being honest to us is no less important. If they are equally biased, what is to stop them from creating a new McCarthy, rather than exposing one? Where does the slippery slope begin that leads to a news media that is merely the tool of the government as opposed to reporting on it? It may sound implausible in America, but if our rules and standards falter how can we be sure it cannot happen?

The MoveOn.org ad is more than just an ad. The controversy and reactions are far reaching. And Average Joe should keep in mind what this means and can lead to. If we don’t we may not be able to get back from the road it takes us down.

Dear MoveOn.org - repost from 1800blogger - 9.11.2007.1

Some of you may be aware that in addition to my own blogs, I also write to and for several other blogs. A few of those blogs are owned by a friend and colleague of mine. While our opinions differ on what exactly to do about the war in Iraq we do agree about Moveon.org. As such I will repost his comments (any emphasis made is my own) about the article Moveon had in the New York Times. You can also find this post at 1800blogger.com:


The beautiful thing about blogging is that eliminates the saying, “It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.” Hopefully, you hold this blog post worthy enough for your righteous asses to read it.

People always ask me whether I’m liberal or conservative and I always pause before I answer. Then I reply, “I’m not sure, it depends on the topic.” I answer that way because that’s how I feel. The one thing that I truly do believe in is that I need to respect some things in life, whether it’s a person or a religion because it’s just the right thing to do. Generals, religious views, old ladies, old men, clergymen …….. just to name a few.

Think about a General’s life. For as long as they can remember, they pledged allegiance to The Flag of the United States of America. It’s a calling - the same calling experienced by a rabbi or a priest. I really believe that. You make a decision to pursue a position in life not based on economic gain or most other material things but just because its something that you feel you should be doing. For 20 or 30 years, you give everything to this country not to get the title of General. In fact, most ranks in the military come as a by-product of exemplary dedication and hard work. And after you give everything you have for 20 or 30 years, you are awarded the distinction of being called General. I would guarantee you this. Some General sometime over the past 200 years gave their life so you could do what you’re doing today. Personally, I disagree with the war. In life, a smart man cuts his losses and a foolish man stays the course. In 2008, I will have the opportunity to vote and probably vote against any Republican who doesn’t have a plan to end this war because a smart man cuts his losses. This may be the good fight but it’s not the right fight.

Then, I come to your ad in the New York Times. Although, you probably believe in your cause, I often wonder who funds causes like this. Well, I know the answer. People like George Soros and the people who have an agenda. There are millions of people dying in this world and we have diseases such as aids, cancer, heart disease and diabetes killing millions, and your organization made a decision to pay for and display this ad in the New York Times.

General Petraeus or General Betray Us.

So what you did is that little boy who had a calling so many years ago that your work and dedication to our freedom was worth the ad in The New York Times.

One year ago, I contacted a father who lost his 2 boys in 9/11. One was a fireman, one was a policeman. He had no other children. When I saw your ad, I thought of that man. Before running another ad like that, why don’t you think of him too?

For all the people that I personally knew who perished on September 11, 2001, this company, this blog and the World will never forget. Neither should you MoveOn.org.

So allow me to apologize for you.

Dear General Petraeus:

We’re sorry.

Respectfully,

Our former righteous ass

Comments on the National Intelligence Estimate Part 2 - 7.23.2007.2

Continued from Comments on the National Intelligence Estimate Part 1...

But that would ignore the benefits I received. Beyond the improved health and fitness that was an immediate result were the less obvious benefits. My self-discipline was heightened and has helped me every day since graduating the Island. My attention to detail has allowed me to perform my work more efficiently. I have greater self-confidence thus helping me succeed in careers I never thought I would take on, like becoming a successful stockbroker, or working overseas in import-export in Moscow. My determination to excel has lead to me building a business that now comprises several divisions.

Such are the benefits of actions that happened 20 years ago, that an outside observer at the time would imply were negatives.

Such is a similar point made by Senator Bond.

“Your news analysis asks, “Are we safer?” The answer is emphatically yes. Our efforts to combat terrorism worldwide have prevented Al Qaeda from attacking the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and have disrupted known terrorist plots to carry out further attacks on American soil.”

In any path there are hardships and loss. The goal, if worthwhile, is always difficult to attain in the simplest description. But when politics are used to incite emotion, and to interpret results the results will never be the best.

The war on terror has worked. The fact that we have not lost thousands of lived of average citizens proves that. 300 million Americans sleep safer today because of the efforts of our Armed Forces. That is a fact proven not in some flashy ad, or neat accounting numbers, but in the least glamorous ability of waking up and going to work routinely.

Could there have been better decisions? Yes. Could the Iraq and Pakistani governments be more helpful and effective? Absolutely. Is there a danger to the average citizen if we quickly retreat from Iraq?

“It [the NIE] makes clear that the threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq is not just to Iraqis — it’s to the U.S. homeland as well.”

Forget the politics. Don’t think of who will be the next President. The current issue is what we are doing now, and how that will affect us in the future. Rushing headlong into a situation is not an answer. Acting on emotion, whipped up because of one political preference or another, is foolhardy. And in my opinion any that would promote action without thought of consequences is foolhardy, even if they might think their action beneficial.

Without delving for implication, the NIE states there is good and bad in regard to our actions in Iraq. The best course of action is the planning and implementing of actions that improve the bad and continue the good. It may not be good for a soundbite, but it is good for the nation. Partisan politics are a great thing, in peacetime. Effective plans of action are best now.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Comments on the National Intelligence Estimate - 7.23.2007.1

I missed a recent news analysis by the New York Times, and the response by Senator Kit Bond. I thank Mr. Keith Burgess-Jackson for his post bringing both to attention. Essentially the subject at hand is the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and what it has found. Depending on the POLITICAL motivation of the reader the NIE says good or bad things.

To say that the New York Times presents a bias in this issue is an understatement. By the second paragraph it is clear that they found the NIE report to be a screaming statement that the United States and our allies have wasted our time, money and the lives of our armed forces. They state that the conclusions they go on to describe, are IMPLIED from the NIE report. My understanding is thus that an implied message may not be the actual one.

“…the threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and spreading Islamic extremism.”

That is the conclusion that the New York Times claimed was implied. This is a good thing to derive if you wish to support and hasten the retreat of American troops from Iraq. There is nothing more powerful than mothers enraged at the deaths, or potential deaths, of their children. Stirring emotions clouds facts and thought, but elicits action faster than most anything else.

I want to interject a memory I had from back in the Marine Corps basic training. After a very trying day, and several trips to the sand pit, Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams took a moment to enlighten is tired, sore, yet dedicated ‘rocks’. He mentioned that moms of America don’t want their sons to sweat in training. They don’t want it to be harsh in learning to be a Marine. That there was a huge list of things that could not be done to us, and that their eyes were all on Paris Island. Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams went on to say,

“The more you sweat in peace, the less you will bleed in war. Boys, I don’t want you to bleed so I will do whatever it takes to make you sweat. Your moms love you but they don’t know. I love you and I do.”

Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams (yes, this is how I always refer to him, out of due respect and fear) had previously lost 2 strips after appearing before Congress and questioned about his training practices, so we were later told. Some would imply that aspects of the training I received was inappropriate, harsh, unnecessary and brutal. Others would focus on the changes in my life and thinking that the training, and my time in the Marines brought about. Some would label these things as negative.

Continued in Part 2...