I think you meant to write:
If it were up to Obama, we would never had invaded a soveriegn country on the basis of falsehoods and lies and the horribly inept planning that sold the war as being easy and over in no time.
Sigh.
By that measure, the mainstream media has earned their position by espousing ideas that find favor with even more people. Is that the sort of bias you’re railing against, ideas that appeal to Americans?
The point of the conventions, these days, at least, is boosterism; each party attempting to show why they are better than the other. In that context, the message of these images is not “be vigilant against radical Islam,” but rather “be vigilant against Democrats.” To show something so deliberately inflamatory, to exploit the deaths of thousands of innocent people, in an effort to cast other Americans as the enemy, is shameful.
I find it troubling that you have such a difficult time with that concept.
If your analysis were correct, the people you hate wouldn’t be so strong and have built the empires they have. Sine they do, you’re analysis is flawed. They’ve sprouted to such prominence because of the liberal bias in the media.
Part of being vigilant against Islam is knowing which people take the threat more seriously. So, yes we should be vigilant against those (Dems, Reps, whoever) who do not take the threat seriously enough.
What’s shameful is wanting to sweep the event, along with the ashes of 3,000 people, under the rug because it might make you a little uncomfortable. And the point is to avoid another 3,000. Or 30,000. Or 3,000,000. Reminders every now and then are good.
I find it troubling that you have such a difficult time being original.
Following your logic, wouldn’t it also be “good” to remind Joe American that your current Government has butchered literally hundreds of thousands of people just as innocent as the ones that went down on 9/11? Or is that something to be proud of?
So reminders every now and then are good, right? U.S. Perpetuates Mass Killings In Iraq
Fair enough, but why not mention other recent, or foreign acts of terrorism carried out? Why no mention (AFAIK) of Pan Am 103, WTC Bombing in 1993, The Madrid Train Bombing, USS Cole, or the several times our embassies have been attacked? I can understand your sentiment, but it seems pretty myopic to focus solely on 9/11 if you point is to remind people we are at war with radical Islam. Yes, it is the biggest, but it does not provide anyone with any insight on how to “win” this war. Do their actions at the convention make us any safer?
Please take a look at the RAND report linked to earlier if you have not already. I would like to know what you think about the conclusions they’ve reached.
I doubt anyone would confuse me for anything but a liberal. But having said that I can’t really find a lot of fault with this except that I find David Gregory a bit boring.
Even Fox doesn’t put O’Reilly on for the election coverage. That’s essentially what it is. I also feel that Matthews probably does a better job with maintaining enough neutrality to do the job. What I read is that the big boys at NBC news like Brokaw and Williams were pretty unhappy with the leftward slant. I like Matthews and the fact that he pisses me off a pretty good bit means that he probably is more neutral than most. But I find myself always agreeing with Olberman, which is probably a sign that there’s something wrong.
Secondly, Fox doesn’t have any equivalent of the NBC Nightly News. If MSNBC were somehow a sole entity like Fox then maybe it could be a liberal-only outfit, but apparently maintaining an appearance of neutrality for the purpose of their NBC Nightly News credibility seems to be more imoprtant.
Olbermann is really just too liberal to be an anchor. I think Matthews was a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Didn’t Matthews do the job like four years ago?
Olbermann would probably be better off if he would preach just a little bit less. He really wants to be the next Cronkite but he seems a bit too biased in my opinion. I like his liberal slant, but I’d also like it to seem a little less predictable.
You know, I always like Dan Abrams, I wish they had given the job to him. He seemed cool. He even wore jeans and Chucks!
Rush Limbaugh started from a “very small show on radio” and now has stations across the country carrying his show for 3 hours every weekday. The “mainstream media” started from a blank sheet of paper. From the invention of the radio, they created an industry. They invented broadcasting, and broadcast journalism. Assuming we’re still focusing on NBC, they are one of the big three broadcast networks, with a history stretching back for decades, with affiliate TV stations, news bureaus, and multiple 24-hour cable channels. Now, why is it that Limbaugh’s empire indicates that there is an audience for his views, but the same can not be said of NBC?
“Being vigilant against Islam”, eh? Could you have perhaps meant “militant Islam”?
Regardless of that, this sounds an awful lot like “you’re either with us or against us.” Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them your enemy. Just what is it you think the Democrats will do if you take your eyes off them for a few minutes?
Okay, then. While we’re on this truth-telling kick, let’s make sure that every flight coming back from Iraq is met by a camera crew. Let’s get some pictures of flag-draped coffins for the Democrats to use in their ads. How would that work for ya?
(Not that it matters. The Republicans have made sure to sweep those ashes under the rug, and the Democrats wouldn’t stoop that low, anyway.)
If it were true, possibly. As long as it would be beneficial to the country. But since it’s not true, it’s a moot point. And the moral equivalence you attempt to draw is truly disgusting. I not surprised.
Drink?
You make a good point. But I don’t think that the convention was the venue for such an argument. It has been made before, and it should be again. It does makes sense to use the most recent one, which is also the most horrific to make the point efficiently.
I wold say that if their actions make us more vigilant, more aware of the caliber of the threat, yes, that’s a start to making us safer.
I did browse through it. I’m not sure what you’d like to know exactly. I’m not advocating large-scale military action, unless if needed. Intelligence and smaller strike forces are as much the tools of war as sending tens of thousand of troops in. Again, if you’d like me to comment on a specific point, I’d be happy to.
What? How would it not be beneficial to remind people of the mistakes we made so that we may avoid voting for leaders who will easily kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in a misguided attempt to play real-life Risk.
I think it’d be very beneficial if we were all cognizant of exactly what the results of our overseas follies are. In fact, I would argue that our real problem is not knowing the consequences of our actions in Iraq.
Just because we aren’t explicitly targeting civilians doesn’t mean that we’re morally in the clear.
I’m not sure I follow what you wrote, but I’ll give it a shot. The reason is that NBC, along with the other two of the big three, had a monopoly of sorts. They had a captive audience. And they still have an audience, just not as convincingly as they used to. But I don’t know why you begrudge Rush his success. You might hate what he says, but he twisted no one’s arm to listen. The more he talked the bigger his audience got. If you went on the air with a small show to start and then was able to expand your listenership, I’d say good for you for tapping into the power of American capitalism, even though I might hate what you had to say. The mainstream media is actually losing percentages of viewership as people vote by changing the channel. Again, I’m entirely clear what your point is here.
I did.
You are. You either see the enemy for who and what he is and marshall resources accordingly, or you are complicit in their next success. If you do not do everything you can you will share in the blame. i’d like to simply avoid the next incident.
It wouldn’t Because I don’t see how it would help us be more vigilant against those who want to kill us. And by doing that you’d be doing exactly what you accuse the RNC of: using American deaths to win political points.
So, you agree it would be stooping? Good:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/15/ap/politics/mainD8IS3LK81.shtml
(Sorry about asking you to copy and paste. The posting tools work for me only very seldom since the “upgrade”. I’ve let the powers that be know.)
Because those mistakes, of which there were many, have nothing to do with how vigilant we should be. Before those mistakes were made, we were attacked, numerous times, twice on our own soil. The only thing the coffins do is weaken the stomach for war. Which is precisely why the left favors showing them. And when you’re in a war that is not a helpful thing to do.
I read the NYT article and was relieved to see that MSNBC is attempting to behave like a responsible news organization. Matthews and Olbermann are embarrassments to the field of journalism, much like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are. The sad thing is, at one time Matthews had some form of credibility as a commentator, but he pissed it away by making dumbassed comments about thrills up his leg, Hillary Clinton being elected because her husband had an affair, and the like.
I will admit that I was a big fan of Countdown in its early days, and the symbolic link between Murrow and Olbermann with his “special comments.” Problem is, special comments become less special when you’re doing them every week. Olbermann’s contempt for the Clintons was evident throughout the campaign - he was all too happy to report and lambast Team Clinton for shenanigans, but gave Team Obama a pass. Look, it’s politics. Both sides are trying to gain a competitive advantage - acting as if one is behaving completely above board while the other is playing dirty pool is naive at best and an indication of being “in the tank” at worst.
Olbermann is a pompous windbag and he needs to get over his O’Reilly fetish. CNN would never give their gang of idiot commentators, from Beck to Dobbs to Nancy Whatsherface, access to primary coverage. That’s for the professionals. But MSNBC put their gang of clowns up there with real newsmen like Williams and Brokaw. I especially felt for Brokaw, who clearly looked uncomfortable as he tried to provide analysis alongside the two other goons.
But it is not the most recent act of terrorism, it’s just the most glaring one that can be exploited using emotional appeals. If the point were just to make people intellectually appreciate the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in, why not mention the Madrid Bombings? Specifically as a call to secure our trains and other vital resources the same way we have done with the airports. It happened more recently, and displayed almost as much coordination as 9/11 did. You seem to be making the argument that this was supposed to be instructive, when the video was little more than a bald scare tactic. They didn’t show the dead bodies from Madrid because they are not Americans, and thus do not evoke the same emotional response from people.
There weren’t even vague policy proposals. Just a voice-over promising the GOP will make us safer and will never forget what THEY did to us, with images of somber faces, tattered flags, demolished buildings, and dead bodies. The video wasn’t a proposal, it wasn’t an argument, it was emotional blackmail. All of which bothers me less than the hypocrisy of the whole thing. You can’t claim 9/11 changed everything, while simultaneously engaging in the same old politics of fear-mongering and mud slinging. You can’t claim a political endorsement is a 9/11 tribute.
What do you think the caliber of the threat is? Honestly, how vigilant and scared should we be? Should I be more scared of terrorists than I am of drunk drivers, heart disease, cancer, or any of the other things that are far more likely to kill me and my loved ones. I live in DC, and I see the enhanced security first hand. I welcome most things that will make us safer, but I am very wary of anybody who claims they are gonna do what Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GWB all failed to do.
Before anything else, let’s get this straight. Are you calling me an enemy of this country? Are you equating me with terrorists?
Yes, or no?
You’re kidding, right? I was talking about attacks on Americans. You don’t see why the most recent—and most horrific—attack on Americans might be the one to show at a convention for a candidate competing to hold office in the U.S.? If so, I’m not quite sure I can help you. Now if one were to do a half-hour special on the issue, the Madrid bomb and the acts of terror in London—successful and unsuccessful should absolutely be included as they would give a fuller picture.
The video made a simple point. That the two candidates, and parties, view the threat differently. Contrast what the Reps did with the entire Dem convention not even mentioning radical Islam. It’s absolutely surreal that they would not do so.
Reminding people what is at stake is not only completely within bounds, , but the responsible thing to do. Obviously, we disagree.
Prior to 9/11, pretty much no one believed that something like it cold happen on our own soil. No-one thought that they’d wake up one day and 3,000 people would be killed in a single attack. I remember the preliminary reports that morning. The estimates for deaths was 30,000+, and if the attack happened a little later when everyone was at their desks it might have reached close to that number. Now just imagine if there was just one plane, but on that plane was some type of WMD. That number could reach 3,000,000. We’ve been put on notice. We need to take real threats seriously. Hopefully we have learned from the mistakes of past administrations. We need to take a harder line against radical Islam and be more vigilant against it, not less. One can but wonder where we’d be today if we had adopted that attitude going back to the earlier attacks.
Please. I don’t feel like getting into a big to-do with a drama queen. My response went to your first line. I don’t know you or what you are. You’re just a collection of posts on a message board to me. so I don’t know if you’re a saint or a terrorist, a hard-working doctor who helps the poor, an arsonist, or a precocious 11 year-old girl. So, just relax.
But I will clarify. Yes, to a degree, you’re either with us or against us. If you fight against being more vigilant and something happens that would otherwise have been prevented, then yes, you bare some responsibility for that. This does not mean that people can’t legitimately disagree and what should be done. That’s a debate we should be having. The more ideas the better. But arguing for doing less is not helpful.
We’re not at war with “radical Islam.” We are not at war at all. There is no serious threat to the US. Your hysteria about a few thousand fanatics living in caves on the other side of the world is unnecessary and misplaced. It’s nothing but alarmist political rhetoric designed to scare the rubes into voting Republican.
Showing 9/11 snuff porn at the RNC was cynical and manipulative electioneering. Trying to justify it with ridiculous fearmongering about Muslims just makes it worse.
Then have the decency to not inflame the conversation by calliong people names.
Knock it off.
[ /Modding ]