Kerry ran on a platform that he would give the troops whatever they needed, and that he would not pull the troops out. Kerry's solution to Iraq was to finish the job, and make Iraq stable.
You said that journalists gave Bush a pass on the NG thing. He had to survive both Michael Moore and Dan Rather...
Being lazy, and capitalists providing them what sells doesn't make them having a liberal bias. The whole press corps got skewed for believing the lies about the Clintons and their staff trashing the whitehouse on their way out. Of course after the independent investigation revealed that the stories weren't true we didn't hear so much about that. I already mentiond the NY Times having to apologize for giving the President to much credit in the lead up to the war. I posted another example of the Press not doing their job and blowing the whistle on Bush's fib about Aid to Africa. There are examples all over the place of the press not pusrsuing valid issues that were firendly to the left and instead letting the President slide on so much of it.
i don't think it's unfair to say the press, generally, has more of a liberal bias than the general population. I don't see how that's a bad thing as long as they try to remain objective. People who are attracted to certain professions tend to share certain viewpoints. It's probably fair to say most investment bankers are conservatives. If 80% + vote Democrat, vs 50% of the general population that tends support a more liberal stance. What i don't like, is when they trade objectivity for agenda -- such as Fox news quest to provide the 'other' side. Being blinded by the flag during the leadup to the invasion (for the most part) wasn't reflective of their overall coverage. Media's certainly become more combative -- and that's not good. But I wouldn't call them overly friendly to this adminstration.
That's right. If the military doesn't use the bombs and amo in its arsenal, then why would the government need to buy more. War is good for business.
The press has other objectives all of which take precedence for them over political affiliation. Being first to the story, pack mentality, getting scoops on hot stories, being able to sell papers/win viewers, meet deadlines etc. Yes the reporters may be liberal, but that doesn't take precedence over a whole list of things. I'm not saying in general they are overly friendly to the Bush administration, nor are they overly harsh on it. I am pointing out that there have been opportunities where good journalists would have done certain things that would have exposed the Bush administration in a negative light. The press did not do this. I think the point is they don't have a liberal agenda to destroy this president or his plans. If that was the case there were too many opportunities for that that the media has passed up.
Agreed. No liberal agenda as some of in the administration would contend. But then they villainize everyone. But in general outlook and philosophy, i'd say most media is more liberal than not. And this has always been. And is so around the world. So i see no point in denying it.
KERRY: "I believe that within a year from now we can significantly reduce American forces in Iraq," Kerry tells Inskeep. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3822655 I'm sure his opinion changed a week later, when the polls showed something different. Bush was the pro-war candidate, Kerry was the minimize and make it international and not primarily American (which means nothing would happen aside from economic sanctions and some no-fly zones)
No WMD's. The war was sold on WMD's (at least to me). Personally - I never thought that Bush claimed a Saddam - 9/11 link so that was never an issue. 9/11 showed us that the US is vulnerable to horrific terrorist attacks. We know that Saddam would support a terrorist agency versus the US. The thought of Saddam supporting and giving some WMD to a terrorist agency was very feasible. That's why I half-heartedly supported the war. Without the WMD's - a lot of the support is gone. Maybe the US could have just worked harder with the UN doing inspections. I we had cheap oil at least- I'd feel better.
KERRY: "I believe that within a year from now we can significantly reduce American forces in Iraq," Kerry tells Inskeep. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3822655 Its quite ironic that public opinion sways so much when there is no vote involved yet regional and presidential races seem to always show favor for what the President is doing. I heard these same polls before every election and now they'll start to come up again. I call bull$$it.
Americans like shiny cars and big bold statements from their leaders. It seemed like Kerry was too busy walking a fine line to make any big bold statements. If he came out as too pro-war - he'd risk losing his Dem-base. If he came out as anti-war - he'd lose some votes to Bush. It's hard when your base is split on passionate issue like this one.
Saying that he believed we could have done a good enough job to reduce American force within a year is not the same as pulling out of IRaq and leaving it to civil war. What Kerry's plan was is that he could do what Bush tried to do and fail, and that is get a real coalition on the ground helping out. You can say that means doing nothing, but that isn't what Bush thought about it when he tried and failed, and it isn't what Kerry thought either. He never wanted to give up all control to the Europeans and wanted the U.S. in the lead. Kerry wanted the U.S. to LEAD. He wanted trained Iraqis running their country, and he wanted significant help from our allies. All of which are good plans, and none of which are cutting and running and leaving IRaq in chaos.
FB -- i hear ya. i remember kerry saying that. i was always very skeptical, though. i couldn't imagine him building a coaltion after the fact to go in and clear this out. of course, we'll never know.
Kucinich and Sharpton, in the primaries, were the anti-war candidate - Kerry always fought with them. In the general election, Kerry consistently made clear he thought the methodology Bush was using was completely wrong, but that it was vital that we win <I>using a new and different strategy</I>. Nice try at using Republican talking points, though.
C'mon Major?? Read the quote! KERRY: "I believe that within a year from now we can significantly reduce American forces in Iraq," Kerry tells Inskeep. If thats what he believed than that is fine. All I am trying to point out is that Bush won the election. I doubt any of the anti-war crowd would have voted for Bush over Kerry. And now, just like always since Bush has been president, polls come out against him, yet at election time the republicans and Bush seem to always win. I just don't think peoples mind's change that quickly as you guys would believe. That coupled with a strong knowledge of statistics allows me to understand how easily it is to manipulate large sets of data to have it tell you whatever you want. As Mark Twain said "Lies, Damn Lies, and statistics"
