My mother, drunk or sober!
Your mother, sober? Cite?
Mine mine, what a good little German we have here – as if it wasn’t clear enough already you had to go spell it out for us. America’s Keyboard Apologists, gather 'round! Make sure you quell any and all criticism of the Homeland – especially any that comes from those damn pinkie sticking, tea-sipping, crumpet munching furriners!
To Gitmo with the lot! Waterboard them with some of that Chardonnay scotch if you must…
The funny thing is that most newspapers at the time of the framing of the Constitution were *explicitly *political, in many cases directly owned by politicians and political parties. The idea of an “objective” press would be quite alien to the framers. In effect, the 1st Amendment was designed specifically to protect Fox News and its ilk.
Here you go. - March 18, 2003 (bolding mine)
Here’s another. - February 26, 2003
These three paragraphs do a good job of laying out the rationale. The fact is that there was not ONE reason to go into Iraq. Clinton almost took decisive military action himself against Saddam. There is an argument to be made that he should have been taken out on humanitarian grounds alone. After 9/11, an even more compelling reason was thrown onto the table. Does this men we should have gone? In hindsight, no. But there was a legitimate rationale for it. But the fact remains that freeing the iraqi people for a murderous dictator was a reason. And it was stated before we went in.
And just to set the record straight, I never voted for the man and wish he was never even given the nomination.
Those three paragraphs are not the rationale at all, they are describing the best hopes for the results of the invasion. That speech, from which you cherrypicked your quotes, clearly and unmistakably lays out the actual reasons the Bush Administration had fo rthe war.
*In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world – and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country – and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. *
And from your first link:
*Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against
Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a
deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored
terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. The danger is clear: Using
chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of
Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or
hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this
threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward
tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.*
Again, in this speech Bush lays out the reasons for the invasion (WMD, terrorist alliances) and then goes on to speak of what the supposed benefits to the Iraqi people will be.
Either you didn’t read the speeches or you’re hoping that no one will check your sources.
Sorry, I checked.
Yeah, let me know when it comes to you because I don’t know what you’re talking about. You could be talking about the left’s reactions to Bush, but since that would be brain-damaged, it must be something else.
Unless you’re brain-damaged. If so, let me know, and my condolences in advance.
Murdoch has every right to publish what he chooses and the citizens have every right to expect the government to regulate market share to assure competition and limit the commercial influence on the free press.
I don’t adhere to this absolute argument for the First Amendment. The press is more than free speech. It has a far more important role in a democracy. People engaged in the free press are in a position to determine who speaks to the masses and who doesn’t. Your argument is that the First Amendment should protect the press owners regardless of the implications on democracy. If we had a more egalitarian society, I could agree with it.
As the media becomes less competitive and the ease of entry becomes more difficult, the press becomes the privilege of the few and determined by money, which today is closely aligned with political and business elites. Naturally, a press system built on commercialism will advance the interests of its advertisers.
The government regulated the press for fifty years, limiting advertising and market share, and it never interfered with free speech.
Uhh, pay attention, please. I did NOT deny that what you cite were reasons, maybe even the largest reasons, were not reasons. I’m saying they weren’t the only reasons. You asked for cites that rebuffed your claim. I gave them. You can dance and hand wave all you want, but you now have your cites indicating what you didn’t think ti be true is, in fact, true. Let the ignorance dissolve, don’t fight it. 
Fox comes pretty damn close.
You are right and the First Amendment was intended to protect Fox. The First Amendment was intended to protect dissident voices from harassment and intimidation by the government --those in power. It wasn’t meant to protect power from dissident voices, which is what the government did for eight years through Fox News. Sure, there were dissidents but their voice was marginalized, castigated as nuts or not covered at all. I can’t imagine the framers of the Constitution intended for the government to have control of a press entity with the power and reach of Fox News news.
They aren’t reasons at all, if you bother to read the speeches. The reasons, in both of them, are WMD and terrorist associations. The parts you quoted are not stated as reasons for the invasion, they are the Bush administrations pie-in-the-sky outcomes.
Read the damn speeches.
So let me see if I understand what you are saying. America can go into other countries, kill and torture people, destroy property, and those people are not allowed to criticise America because they are foreigners? What kind of an idiot are you?
Look here you moron, there have been Spanish citizens among the dead and tortured; agents of the American government have been in Europe kidnapping people off the streets and breaking all sorts of other laws. And I am not allowed to have an opinion? Even if not one single European was affected these crimes are crimes against humanity which affect every one of us.
Yes, it really does show the desperation of someone who knows he is trying to defend the indefensible.
And to give the proper attribution:
And for good measure:
I’m sorry but you’re dead wrong. Thought experiment–would you care what Fox News put out there if it could be proven that no politicians or political parties paid them anything at all ever?
No, those things were said but they were not the primary justification for the invasion, they were mentioned as side benefits. In its official justification, like before the UN, it was always the WMD and the imminent attack (as Blair put it).
When America and France argued it was not over whether the Iraqis should be freed or not, it was over whether there was reason to believe in the existence of WMD. The Iraqi people were not part of America’s justification and could not be because the UN Charter specifically prohibits such interventions.
Well, one of us is. And you have my condolences in arrears…
-XT
I don’t know what I’m saying anymore. I came in here to say that the Iraq War wasn’t as bad as the holocaust, and then people started talking about how evil the United States was being, and then I got offended and pissed off, so I got more extreme, and other people got more extremme, so I got more extreme because, hey, it’s either that or admit you’re wrong, right, and the first rule of debate is never to back down or admit you’re wrong, and if I don’t stop this soon, I’m going to end up advocating the extermination of the human race or blowing up the earth or something, and I don’t want to do that, so this’ll probably be my last post in the thread, because I’ve gone beyond the bounds of logic and am acting in ways, I don’t like to act. But I think you deserve to know what I actually do believe. You might disagree with me, but hey, that happens.
I believe that America is the preeminent country on Earth. We’re (even though our economy isn’t doing well right now), unrivalled in in terms of our millitary, economic, and cultural influence. I think that, in general, this is a good thing, because American values are good ones, and because Americans, in general, try to do the right thing. I think when it comes to things like the torture and indefinate detentions, even though we were wrong to do it, the attacks on the World Trade Center scared us in a way that we hadn’t been scared before, and it let us tolerate that stuff in the hopes that it would make us safe again. When it comes to the Iraq war, I don’t know. We went to war partly because we were scared, with the WMD threat, partly because of the oil, but I also think partly to overthrow Sadaam and set up a democratic government. I’m not entirely convinced that’s a bad thing. I know you’ve talked about the UN, and international law, and you’re right, our attack of Iraq probably did violate international law. But it seems sometimes that the UN is more concerned about stability than freedom and the wellbeing of member populations. In spite of things like the Declaration for Human Rights, there are some really repressive nasty governments out there, which the UN tends to just turn a blind eye to. I’d like to see a world where all the countries of the world are democracies with free markets where the rights of all citizens are respected, and I think the US has a duty to play a leading role in helping that day come about.
This isn’t really about political donations; although, there is an argument to be made concerning who has the money to make substantial donations and influence policy. I also think political donations should be fully disclosed to the consumer.
But this is more about what is a free press and does the First Amendment protect all press structures. I don’t think the First Amendment’s protection of a free press should apply to corporations, executives and shareholders whose interests have nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with protecting and controlling a powerful industry for financial gain. It just so happens the Republican politicians, not all Republicans and not excluding Democrats, are the political operatives representing corporate interests and Fox News functions to protect those politicians who protect corporate interests.
Is it in the best interest of a democratic society to let the wealthiest Americans determine the content of media and news?
Show me where the cutoff is, then. Should all news be locally produced? I mean, having national/international reach requires money, period, and serious money at that. In addition, the smaller the base of readership a news source has, the more specialized it can be in terms of appealing politically to that readership.
You want something like the BBC that’s literally under government control?
Basically I think you’re being excessively idealist.
If you need low-pay amateur news, just look at blogs and your local indie newspaper. That’s the face of the press system you’re essentially advocating.