I would agree that things posted in this thread have clearly demonstrated that some people are biased, but I would imagine you and I will disagree on which is which. I actually gave an accurate if somewhat tempered version; The BBC reporter was just now going over the material again, and was talking about creating 'martyrs' from the Arab perspective, of demanding why the US spokesperson who just gave a press confereance kept side-stepping the issue, of the great anger that this is creating in Iraq, and condemed the US as doing the exact opposite of what it claims when it says that it is trying to drum up support within the Iraqi people..I left all this out of my intial report because I found it subjective, and hadn't seen any of it for myself..I HAD seen exactly what I reported, including the words 'disastrous'..and if you see the film, you will see why I, AND THE BBS, used the words mob, incredibly angry, etc... Of course my reporting exactly what was and is being reported..woops..just saw it again, and the words "Fury with the US and loyalty to Saddam" were used...must have missed those in my attempt to give a biased account...anyho, as I was saying, my reporting exactly waht I saw and was being reported, as close to word for word as possible, while leaving out what I couldn't verify/report with accuracy was immediatley taken by you and others as a sign of taking potshots...Inconvenient facts are potshots, not facts... See the pattern now? Better still, turn on the BBC, or are you unable/unwilling to get any perspective on this but an American one?
I am sure they are angry that civilians died, and if it was a wayward missile, that is tragic. However, this is war, and collateral damage is to be expected. It will get far messier before it gets better. War sucks, but Saddam could have ended it all by simply stepping aside when he had the chance. More blood on Saddam's hands.... DD
You, like rimbaud , think everybody else is stupid. I see the biases. I'm just tired of yours. I celebrate your right to have and express it, but I celebrate even more my right to criticize because it is more satisfying. Someone in another thread cited your posts as anti-American. I don't find that assessment all that far off... That BBC reporter might be Dan Rather's cousin.
As I said before, such an open-minded and complimentary one, that MacBeth. It is important to know if this is happening. There's no fault in anyone for posting it. But if this turns out to be true, can we see some equivalent outrage for the Iraqi regime killing Iraqis? Will you chalk it up as merely "American propaganda", or are the Iraqis intentionally putting their civilians in harm's way? The double standard is pretty overwhelming: Iraqi regime intentionally trying to get civilians killed and no outrage (or very little) from the far left. A U.S. bomb/missile unintentionally kills civilians and Bush/Americans are once again Satan.
The most frustrating part about the accusations of bias is that, if and when those who accused me of bias do see the reports, and are left with no option but to recognize that I did nothing except repeat the lead story as reported, I can almost guarentee that they will in no way look at or acknowledge the bias they exhibited by their responses, let alone what that other effects that same bias has or will have. At most I'll get a shrugging " Yeah, ok, you were right this time, but..etc." kind of non-apology...Totally missing the greater issue here; When you dismiss/refute NEWS REPORTS OF ACTUAL EVENTS as being indicative of a bias, and theose reports were accurate, you have clearly shown that YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE BIAS.
Where was the outrage from the far right regarding this? The only outrage regarding this in the past 12 years that I ever saw was from Amnesty International.
BAGHDAD, IRAQ- Baghdad resident Taha Sabri, killed Monday in a U.S. air strike on his city, would have loved the eventual liberation of Iraq and establishment of democracy, had he lived to see it, his grieving widow said. "Taha was a wonderful man, a man of peace," his wife Sawssan said. "I just know he would have been happy to see free elections here in Iraq, had that satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missile not strayed off course and hit our home." A shoemaker and father of five, Sabri, 44, was listening to the radio at 3 a.m. when a missile launched from a U.S. warship in the Persian Gulf veered off course and struck just feet from his house. Sawssan was away at the time, tending to an ailing aunt in the Baghdad suburb of Mansour. "My husband was no fan of Saddam," Sawssan said. "He felt he was a terrible despot. If the Americans do drive him from power, it will be that much more of a shame that they killed Taha."
Gee, Clutch...is it possible that you are only looking at this from one side? I post this report of a BBC news report, and am immediately told that I am enjoying this, am called Saddam, and accused of bias...despite, as you acknowledge, doing nothing wrong...Then, in my what, 5th or 6th defense of my right to post factual news reports as not making me the equivalent of a sociopath or mass murdering dictator I refer to the position against me as sarcastically saying that only parroting the Administration is wrong...and that's what you criticize!?!? You don't see, maybe, that I had cause for my pretty mild reproach!?!? Who was it that said you only look to criticize one side onthis? I respect you enough to argue with this without thinking you would be so pety as to ban me or something for disagreeing with you, but I do have to say that where and when you weigh in with your criticism seems to be awfully one-sided...How would you have responded if you were called Saddam and told you enjoyed the incident described just for reporting it? Honestly...
Shhh!!! That doesn't work - I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, not mine! Well here's my honest take: I want to find out for sure that this happened. The Pentagon said this morning they had heard the reports but could not back it yet. If true though, it's terrible. Innocent people are dead - I can't imagine going shopping and the place explodes. It also hurts our case for the war in Iraq (I care very little what those parading our streets think - I care what Iraqis think). But, I know the United States did not target this place and they have gone to tremendous lengths to save many civilian lives. This, however, is ignored. And in fact, when the Iraqi regime has gone to great lengths to intentionally kill civilians, there is nothing from the left. Not even equivalent outrage, which would be a double standard itself since they're not equivalent acts.
Ah...back to the old Anti-American thing, huh? What is anti-American about my posts? The fact that I accurately reported of two incidents in Iraq, of victims on each side, or the fact that I am against this war and express it? And re: my bias...see my 3rd last post...
MacBeth - you avoided the point. Characterizing those who don't agree with you as parrots of Rumsfeld, Bush, etc. could not be viewed as insulting? Close-minded? These are the exact things you said you were not when you acused others of being that way. Clearly, you were wrong. Keep playing the "oppressed by an admin" card... won't take away from the above fact.
Aaah, I understand! Seriously, I do realize that the US has gone to tremendous lengths to save many civilian lives, and I believe they have. That's why when a tragedy like this happens, it is played up heavily in the press...the contrast between what the government's stance is regarding civilian casualties, and what really happened. And I believe it is especially played up in the foreign press, since America is currently not very well-liked in other parts of the world. Either way, it is a terrible tragedy, and I agree with you that it hurts our war effort. This war is covered more extensively by American and international media more than any war in history, and they are battling amongst each other for the attention of the audience. They will spare nothing in trying to gain a win in the holy Nielsen jihad, all praise to the ratings/readership Allah.
Oh Clutch is free of bias too, not. You have been very inconsistent on the "bias" you think you see. Why don't you check the stuff Giddyup and Behad posted, way more off the deep end [and insulting, especially Behad] than what Macbeth said. [Giddyup, no offense intended because I know you honestly speak your mind--but I think you were way off in that one.]
1) Read the post again...what I said was, sarcastically, that only those who parrot (the Admin) are objective and rational...ie, I wasn't saying that that is what those who oppose me are, but was saying that that was the only acceptable position I could have taken, to parrot them, and not be criticized. Point being I don't think that those who disagree with me fall into that category...I believe that there is middle ground, based on fact, but when you report facts, and are attacked for it, the conclusion is that the only acceptable position you could take, according to those who criticized me for it, would be to parrot one side of it..If you take away the middle ground of fact as being biased, what is left? 2) So are you not going to address the fact that you reproached me for what you percieved was calling them parrots without even mentioning the fact that I was called a murderous dictator who was enjoying the death of innocents? Those kind of remarks aren't worthy of at least the criticism you levelled at me? Call it a card if you want, but I suspect that had the same been done to you, especially if it was just for reporting a news report, your response wouldn;t have been nearly as complimentary and open minded as the parroting is the only accpetable stance point that I made.
Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Slanting the war coverage... That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. Most military experts are saying the campaign in Iraq is an unprecedented success. The war is now six days old. The USA has losses of 20 dead and 14 captured or missing according to the Associated Press. The allies control most of the country and are knocking on the door of Saddam's bunker. But if you read The New York Times today, you might think Iraq was winning. The front page of the "Times" was full of ominous headlines. "Iraqis Repel Copters; One Goes Down." "GIs Regroup After Setback --Two Prisoners on Iraqi TV." "Hussein Rallies Iraqi Defenders." "The Goal Is Baghdad, but at What Cost?" All these headlines were on just one page. Unbelievable. Contrast that to page one of the The Boston Globe, also a very liberal newspaper. "Coalition nearing Baghdad." "War plan on course." "Hunt for banned weapons." "Strategy aims at heart of Hussein's rule." Quite a difference. The Globe giving straight and honest war coverage. So why is the "New York Times" spinning its coverage to the negative side? Well, there's a big reason. Everybody knows the USA will win the war, but if the victory is too overwhelming, the Bush administration wins big too. The Times definitely does not want that to happen. So its editorial position is shading its news coverage, and that's flat-out wrong. The Times wants a pyrrhic victory, that's a win with consequences, so we can say that more diplomacy should have been tried. This kind of a game, playing with vital information makes me extremely angry. There's no question that today's front page of the nation's most powerful newspaper does not reflect the truth of the battlefield. Here's how absurd the whole thing is. 20 Americans are dead. Nine of them were killed by cowardly Iraqis who faked a surrender. And the majority of those captured made a wrong turn, driving right into the Iraqi forces. There have been few major engagements between Iraqi units and American combat troops. The Iraqis are killing coalition soldiers by dressing up in civilian clothes, shooting from mosques and child care centers, and generally violating every rule of warfare in the book. Yet the Times calls the resistance "fierce." Well, I call that kind of coverage farce. And I can back up my description with the facts, not misleading headlines. There may indeed be vicious fighting before this war is over, but right now American troops have done incredibly well. Fighting against cowardly thugs, not using much of its arsenal in order to protect Iraqi civilians. So now you know the truth from the battlefield. Somebody call The New York Times and tell them. That's The Memo.
Who are you accusing of dismissing or refuting this report? The worst that was said was that this kind of tragedy was expected in the frenzy of war. In the months leading up to the war, many here countered the argument regarding civilian casualties with the premise that those kinds of casualties would be lighter in a struggle for a regime change than they would be if the regime were left in place.
