Slashdot Mirror

Newt Gingrich:

In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.

Vint Cerf:

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

Al Gore's original statement was factual. Somebody at the RNC made a separate statement that was a lie, attributed it to Gore and then attacked him for it. The first link clearly illustrates how it was misquoted once by the RNC in a press release the following week, and then the misquote was reproduced as a quote, because the only people being quoted were the people who were complaining. It was all a game to troll the press and to spend so much time complaining about an imaginary quote that it would take all the time away from talking about the real one.

our obsession with school test scores is not such a hot idea.

You are already without a Fourth Estate. Western journalism, with the U.S. in the vanguard, is rapidly becoming a Versailles court doing nothing but flattering the King.

When your journalists are funded by the likes of Jack Welch and Rupert Murdoch, do you really expect anything critical to the Powers That Be?

Bob Somerby may be a malcontent, but he has fairly well documented just how broken the U.S. press corps is. And from this side of the Atlantic, let me confirm that Europe is rapidly becoming just as bad.

Mart

Umm, that's only sorta rich people. Get up above a million in income and watch the rates drop...
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh112404.shtml

That's pretty much correct. To quote the incomparable Bob Somerby:

Drudge didn't say that "Clinton staffers" had sent the photo in question to him; he simply said that unnamed Clinton staffers had "circulated" the photo (where, he didn't say), and he quoted an accompanying e-mail message--without saying who the e-mail had gone to. Do you mind if we draw two simple conclusions--conclusions so simple a child could reach them? First: In all likelihood, no Clinton staffer sent the photo to Drudge, or the brilliant fellow would have said that they had. Second: For all anyone knows, some Clinton staffer sent the photo to a friend in Obama's campaign, and the photo and e-mail proceeded from there. Is that what happened? We have no idea. But then, no one but Drudge has the slightest idea what facts (if any) lay behind his report...

I think Somerby is too trusting when he makes the "if any" a parenthetical. I think it's just as likely that Drudge is mistaken or lying and that the Clinton campaign never "circulated" the photo at all. Why do I think that's just as likely? Because I don't trust a word that Drudge passes along from anonymous sources.

Some news outlets have built a solid reputation of accuracy and you can lend them some level of trust when they assert a fact without citing a named source to back it up. Drudge is not one of them.

These things happen in primaries. Often a lot of independents swing the same way, or last-minute campaigning changes people's minds.

As Bob Somerby points out, the polling for the New Hampshire primary was wrong, by a larger margin, the last time we had a two-party primary:

On January 31 [2000], Broder reported that Bush and McCain were "deadlocked in the latest surveys." The next day, McCain won the race -- by 18 points!

I'm sorry, but measuring media bias based on the Americans for Democratic Action doesn't prove anything substantive about media bias. It is quite possible for a liberal organization to LOVE a particular news network because it is the most receptive to their viewpoints, but if that reception is "balanced" then it's still not bias. Furthermore, even if particular correspondents say they preferred Kerry to Bush, their opinions are fairly irrelevant in light of the media luminaries such as Brian Williams. Some of the other studies they cite are likewise ridiculous. According to the James Hamilton study (2004) mentioned, because conservatives speak out about more liberal bias than liberals speak out against conservative bias, there's a liberal bias? Or... conservatives simply complain more about perceived bias. The article calls this observation of bias "astute", while taking light that media bias wasn't the subject of the Hamilton study. Is this a sign of bias in the article?

Most of the media's bias against liberals is subtle, but persistent. It is more evident as personal attacks or ignoring certain issues, and most of the time liberals don't object too loudly or effectively, striking at the reliability of studies like this. Check out the Daily Howler. They're definitely a liberal group, and I don't agree with all their sentiments, but it's hard to deny the stuff they point out.

making fun of Al Gore's statement is funny and it always will be

Congratulations!

You, sir/maam, could get a job at any major US Newspaper with that attitude, today. In fact, Kudos to you for remembering what's really important.

It's not a straw man, I was responding to the grandparent post. Jeez...

So the news coverage of the Clinton impeachment was *sympathetic* to Clinton? Can you back that up at all? Bob Somerby's Daily Howler has extensive analysis of just how absurdly pro-Republican the coverage actually was, to the point of abandoning common journalistic practices and ethics. Just throw "Starr" into the search box on his site.

And my greater point, which you completely ignored, is that the press has been on a right-wing tear for over a decade now. Again, I point to their performance on Gore/Election 2000, Iraq, John Kerry... all breathlessly repeating Republican spin no matter how absurd.

Can you address that at all? Or are you just going to call it a straw man again?

Were you living in a cave during the 2000 US Presidential election? If not, you should remember the constant lying about what Al Gore said.

Were you living in a cave during the 2000 US Presidential election? If not, you should remember the constant lying about what Al Gore said.

The "Million Little Pieces" incedent is minor as far as I am concerned. The lack of real fact-checking has gotten so bad that there is a whole industry of debunkers and debunker-debunkers. Take Ann Coulter for instance. Her grasp of reality (or at least the difference between truth and fiction) is minimal at best. A whole army of coulter-debunkers have grown up who devote time to debunking her claims (my favorite is The Daily Howler. In turn a whole army of Coulter Defenders has grown up to attack these debunkers.

At first I was annoyed by this phoenomenon, and then bored by it. Initally I assumed that the people who publish Coulter would care that her lies slandered their good name. And then I realized that they didn't care. They were making money off of her and the people both defending and attacking her. And, at the end of the day most people only believe those that say what they want to hear anyway.

While I was initially inclined to see this as bad publishing I now see this as a bigger problem.

http://www.brookesnews.com/theresa_heinz_kerry.htm l
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh112404.shtml

The second one cites the AP and Washington Post and I can't attest to their standards.

The facts were cherry-picked to support a questionable interpretation favorable to the reporter's agenda. See here for starters.

Not that I'm a fan of the educational system -- far from it -- but I am a fan of "objectivity" and a fan of not being snookered by fast-talking salesmen. And that's what I see here, another stop on Mr. Stossel's free market medicine wagon tour.

And I find your attitude regarding objectivity cynical and disturbingly common. Isn't what you're saying is that it's acceptable, and in fact expected, for journalists to be paid mouthpieces for the government or powerful interests?

Re:Information Superhighway (Score:3, Informative)
by Captain Splendid (673276) on Thursday May 05, @09:11PM (#12447615)

Facts coming right up, sah! (link is here , scroll down a bit.) And remember, before you bitch about the article length, you asked for it.

Re:Information Superhighway (Score:3, Informative)
by Captain Splendid (673276) on Thursday May 05, @09:11PM (#12447615)

Facts coming right up, sah! (link is here , scroll down a bit.) And remember, before you bitch about the article length, you asked for it.

Yeah, and you know why? Because I'm sick and tired of dipshits like you that can't be bothered to actually look for information. I mean, fuck, it's 2005. Can't you do a Google search?

I welcome your fact-based reply.

Facts coming right up, sah! (link is here, scroll down a bit.) And remember, before you bitch about the article length, you asked for it.

Where does spin come from? Inventing the Internet

CHAPTER I--GORE IGNORED: The press corps' twenty-month War against Gore began on March 11, 1999. Two days earlier, Gore had given an interview to Wolf Blitzer for a special, weeknight broadcast of CNN's Late Edition. Gore was the sitting vice president of the United States, and the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. As such, the taped session was previewed and promoted by the network. It was Gore's "first on-camera interview since filing as a candidate," one CNN promo said.

A year of impeachment had come to an end; Gore's informal campaigning was about to begin. And a spin campaign from the Washington press corps would follow in extremely short order. This campaign would be built on a nasty charge--the charge that Candidate Gore was a liar. The theme would dominate campaign coverage for the entire twenty months of the race.

In the Late Edition interview, Blitzer asked Gore to explain what set him apart from Bill Bradley, his opponent for the Dem nomination. Somewhat clumsily, Gore offered a list of career accomplishments. One part of his answer drew more attention than any remark by any candidate in the entire 2000 campaign.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Gore said. "I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." On the whole, this was the kind of chest-thumping statement which candidates routinely make on the stump. But as anyone who followed this election will know, Gore's initial, sixteen-word comment was widely dissected for the next twenty months. Almost surely, Gore's brief remark about the Net was the most widely-discussed statement of Campaign 2000. The spinning of this one remark drove a nasty War Against Gore--a spin campaign which almost surely decided the 2000 race.

Gore's remark would be widely attacked. But surprise! At the time Gore made his statement, it received no attention whatever. Blitzer didn't ask Gore to explain his remark; he showed no surprise at what Gore had said. And in its on-air promotions for the taped interview, CNN showed no sign of thinking that Gore had "made news" with his comment. Meanwhile, major papers which covered Gore's interview completely ignored the comment. On March 10, for example, the Washington Post ran a full report about the Gore-Blitzer session. But the paper only discussed Gore's remarks on U.S. relations with China. On March 11, the Washington Times' Greg Pierce reviewed the interview in his "Inside Politics" column. But Pierce only mentioned what Gore had said about early campaign polling. Similarly, the AP's dispatches about Gore's interview completely ignored his Internet comment. And another major organ passed over Gore's statement. On March 10, the Hotline--the widely-read, on-line digest of the day's political news--ran extensive excerpts from the Late Edition Q-and-A's, but omitted the Internet remark altogether. In fact, in the first two days after Gore's appearance, no press entity remarked, in any way, on what Gore said about the Net. Gore's comment would be critiqued, attacked, burlesqued and spun over the course of the next twenty months. But it evoked no reaction from the press--none at all--at the time Gore made it. Repeat: No one in the press said even one word about Gore's st

from http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

"...even one of Gore's long-standing foes was praising his work in this area. On September 1, 2000, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich addressed the American Political Science Association. His remarks were broadcast on C-SPAN:

GINGRICH: In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is--and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a "futures group"--the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen. ...

David Maraniss, 8/26/00: Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the '70s."

"I dont know when a republican candidate gets Ted Kennedy, maybe the only man more liberal than Kerry"

I assume this is in response to accusations about the liberalness factor of Kerry and Edwards voting patterns. This information is purported by those that quote it to be taken from non-partisan statistics.

It is. But the part they selected covers exactly one year - the year that both were absent from many votes while campaigning. It stands to reason that the votes they would be present for would be more contested votes, ones where they would probably come out on the liberal side of things.

While I'm sure that many will tromp over this site, here's a good page showing the total numbers Daily Howler

Ok, so how about calling for Bush's resignation. He has done every one of the things you suggest, in the case of the Niger Uranium issue, if not several other places.

You mean the 16 words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? What was wrong with that? Bush never even mentioned Niger, his statement was not based on that forged document, and his statement has been backed up by several independent reports, including the Brits themselves, and the Financial Times in July of this year.

Last year, when Wilson came out with this story saying he proved Bush was lying in his speech, I said, nonsense. You only proved this memo was a forgery, not that Bush's statement was based on it. But no one listened to me. Thankfully, that's what everyone is saying now.

The big difference is that his lies caused the death of 1100+ americans, and thousands of others.

Sigh. First, I don't know of any lies, and I think you don't either. Second, even if he did lie, those lies did not cause any deaths, as the primary justification for war is entirely factual: that Hussein had not fully accounted for what he was previously known to have, that he was not fully cooperating with UN Resolutions in this and other ways, and he was therefore in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which the U.S. Congress said Bush had the authority to enforce with the military.

Nothing about that is disputable, and none of it is based on lies (not even the vote in Congress, as Kerry himself has many times said he stands by that vote, to this day).

That only one relatively inconsequential part of his story was discredited.

Inconsequential? It was the lead of the story. Nice try, though.

The more important part of the story was the former Texas Lt. Gov. admitting that he used his influence to get Shrub into the guard.

I don't care. Even if Barnes -- a major Kerry fundraiser -- could be trusted, I would not care. This whole story is nonsense to me. We have four years of him as Commander in Chief, why should we judge his continued fitness based on whether he got favors before I was born? I've not run into anyone who cares at all about this, except people who already hate Bush.

My interest in this case has nothing to do with debunking the claims being made, since I don't care about them. It has everything to do with slamming reporters who intentionally and recklessly feed the public lies, so that the public can learn to be more critical and wary of what they see and hear.

After the first debate, Gore advisers thought he had handily won. But a few hours later, the Bush campaign was able to change that perception by disseminating press releases on its websites, through faxes and in e-mails.

Gore's advisers thought he won because he did win. As the Daily Howler points out, the five "instant polls" of viewers after the debate gave Gore the win by an average of 9.6% -- a huge margin, especially considering more Bush supporters were watching.

And that perception did change in the hours and days to come, until finally the American people were browbeaten into believing that Bush had won. But one can't blame GOP press releases and emails. The fault lies squarely on the media, as the Daily Howler has been demonstrating all week.

Whether you think our media has a conservative bias or not, it's indisputable that it let Bush get away with murder after that first debate, refusing to do even basic fact-checking on his blatant errors, and it crucified Gore, mostly by focusing on absurdities and trivia like the color of his suit or his body language. Let's put the blame where blame is due.

After the first debate, Gore advisers thought he had handily won. But a few hours later, the Bush campaign was able to change that perception by disseminating press releases on its websites, through faxes and in e-mails.

Gore's advisers thought he won because he did win. As the Daily Howler points out, the five "instant polls" of viewers after the debate gave Gore the win by an average of 9.6% -- a huge margin, especially considering more Bush supporters were watching.

And that perception did change in the hours and days to come, until finally the American people were browbeaten into believing that Bush had won. But one can't blame GOP press releases and emails. The fault lies squarely on the media, as the Daily Howler has been demonstrating all week.

Whether you think our media has a conservative bias or not, it's indisputable that it let Bush get away with murder after that first debate, refusing to do even basic fact-checking on his blatant errors, and it crucified Gore, mostly by focusing on absurdities and trivia like the color of his suit or his body language. Let's put the blame where blame is due.

• Kerry's story about how Nixon sent him to Cambodia during Christmas, and how this was "seared, seared" in his memory. Only now we find out that he was never in Cambodia, and Nixon wasn't even president then anyways.

Wrong on several counts; he never said Nixon sent him -- here's an anti-kerry blog with a compendium of Kerry's Cambodia quotes here's another -- show me a "Nixon sent" quote or you'll have to retract. Sure, Kerry mentions Nixon, but he never says what you claim. Next, on June 16, 1971 O'Neill told Nixon that "I was in Cambodia, sir." This was recorded by Nixon's secret taping system. That story even made it to freepers, so you have no excuse for missing it!

What we have is, in the 1970's both Kerry and O'Neill agreeing they were in Cambodia, and in 2004 O'Neill changing his story. To you this is proof Kerry lied? A number of vets have come out against O'Neill's group's claims. Read about it here. According to this article, Kerry's boat was very near the border; how can you prove he wasn't on the Cambodian side?

• It was also seared in his memory about when he was in Vietnam when he heard MLK Jr. was shot. Only MLK Jr. was shot months before Kerry went to Vietnam.

Correct, Kerry is in error here, although Kerry never uses the word "seared" regarding that memory. Kerry was on the USS Gridley, mostly in the Gulf of Tonkin. Exactly how far is that from Vietnamese territorial waters?

• Kerry has admitted that his first Purple Heart "may have" been self-inflicted (by accident). This is mainly because Kerry's journal from the time stated that they hadn't been attacked yet.

False. Kerry admitted no such thing. The "self inflicted" claim comes from this line of logic: Kerry was first wounded Dec 2, then wrote in his journal Dec 11 "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky,". Kerry-haters, reading this journal entry, have claimed the wound must have been self-inflicted, but Kerry said no such thing.

• Kerry said he got an honorable discharge before schmoozing with the North Vietnamese, but in fact he was still an officer.

False. Kerry never said he was discharged when he met with the North Vietnamese in Paris. The error is in an AP timeline; not in Kerry materials. You can read about it here. Show me where Kerry claims he was discharged before Paris, or retract.

• He now claims that he requested and signed up for the most dangerous job in the Vietnam War, but in actuality he tried to sign up for the safest. (After failing to get a deferment.) How do we know this? Not only because of records (swift boats were changed from easy coastal patrols to dangerous river missions after Kerry signed up). But we also have Kerry's own admission of this fact a few years ago.

False. Show me where Kerry claims he "requested" the "most dangerous job." Kerry explains he volunteered for the Swift Boats so he could be near the action but not in it. Here's a direct quote: "They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." It is a measure of K

First Mention is in this 7/15/04 Peter Gammons piece. Most of it is about Baseball, but here's the relevant paragraph:

Thing called love

We have been led to cynically believe that many politicians are disingenuous and generally phony, but few will ever beat Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. This man, who changed his middle initial to be JFK and at an anti-Vietnam rally threw someone else's medals into the water, made a self-promotion appearance with Boston talk-show maven Eddie Andelman and claimed he was a big Red Sox fan from his days growing up in Groton, Mass. And at the promotion he said Eddie Yost was his favorite player.

This remarkable paragraph contains three assertions about Kerry: "middle initial", "medals", and "Yost." The first two are erroneous, and the third is not testable. "Middle initial" is false -- Kerry's middle name is his mother's maiden name, Forbes, a famous old Boston name. Gammons has an error in his "medals" story, Kerry threw ribbons over a fence; not medals in the water. You can read Thomas Oliphant's eyewitness account here or here. To summarize, Gammons makes three assertions about Kerry, and the first to are erroneous. What about the third? I don't know any way to prove a negative, but the very first mention of the "Yost" story that I can find, in Boston or anywhere else, is that 7/15 Gammons column. It's all over the blogsphere now, but Gammons has first mention. Given Gammons' other errors, I don't find it very credible.

Now just to complicate matters, Gammons brings up the "Yost" story again five days later in another column. Again, it's mostly about baseball, but here's the relevant paragraph:

So who puts the bug in candidates' ears about seeming what they are not? John Kerry last week professed to be a big fan of "Manny Ortez," then re-emphasized the phoofery by correcting it to "David Ortez." No, that was Dave (Baby) Cortez and "The Happy Organ." A few years back Kerry went on a Boston station with Eddie Andelman and said "my favorite Red Sox player of all time is The Walking Man, Eddie Yost," who never played for the Red Sox. Kerry is going to sweep New England. He's going to get 70 percent of the vote in Massachusetts. He doesn't have to be a Red Sox fan, all he has to do is not be John Ashcroft.

This time, the "Yost" story is folded in with less controversial claims. If you're an anti-Kerry blogger, this version looks less foolish, but given the first mention amongst two canards, I don't find it credible on Gammons' say-so alone. I say bring me independent confirmation or dump it.

And now a bit on the meta-story. Let me shamelessy copy the Daily Howler and quote David Broder:

In a year when war in Iraq, the threat of terrorism and looming problems with the federal budget and the nation's health care system cry out for serious debate, the news organizations on which people should be able to depend have been diverted into chasing sham events: a scurrilous and largely inaccurate attack on the Vietnam service of John Kerry and a forged document charging President Bush with disobeying an order for an Air National Guard physical.

Almost. Ladies and gentleman, we're watching a brilliant campaign at

http://dailyhowler.com/ I check it every day, great archive for the 2000 election too.

Atrios/Eschaton
Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo
Billmon's Whiskey Bar
Matthew Yglesias
Eric Alterman
Kevin Drum
Brad DeLong
Daily Kos
Digby
Mark Kleiman
Hesiod's Counterspin
Bob Somerby's incomparable Daily Howler

and the inimitable Bartcop
(and Fafblog)

One other page to check out is campaigndesk. . It isn't exactly a blog, but it's got excellent media criticism (and even occasional praise). It's put out by the Columbia School of Journalism.

Finally, and this one's in no way a blog, ABC News' TheNote summarizes and links a lot of political reporting every day. TheNote has much more praise than criticism, but during the political season it's part of my essential daily reading.

"Heavily attacked?!?!"

What media were YOU watching? Jeez, even after the bulk of their claims were proven materially false (who you gonna believe, my smearing, partisan, 30-year-old trumped-up memories or the military's lyin' documentation?), the news media in general gave them a free pass.

I'm talking CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc etc etc. See here for an analysis of coverage: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3. Also see his archives for other examples.

Notably, Bob Somerby restricts his discussion to the media's performance and does not address actual political issues. He's not entirely non-partisan but he's pretty good at restricting his discussion to his disgust with the media in general.

"Heavily attacked?!?!"

What media were YOU watching? Jeez, even after the bulk of their claims were proven materially false (who you gonna believe, my smearing, partisan, 30-year-old trumped-up memories or the military's lyin' documentation?), the news media in general gave them a free pass.

I'm talking CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc etc etc. See here for an analysis of coverage: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3. Also see his archives for other examples.

Notably, Bob Somerby restricts his discussion to the media's performance and does not address actual political issues. He's not entirely non-partisan but he's pretty good at restricting his discussion to his disgust with the media in general.

"Heavily attacked?!?!"

What media were YOU watching? Jeez, even after the bulk of their claims were proven materially false (who you gonna believe, my smearing, partisan, 30-year-old trumped-up memories or the military's lyin' documentation?), the news media in general gave them a free pass.

I'm talking CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc etc etc. See here for an analysis of coverage: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3. Also see his archives for other examples.

Notably, Bob Somerby restricts his discussion to the media's performance and does not address actual political issues. He's not entirely non-partisan but he's pretty good at restricting his discussion to his disgust with the media in general.

"Heavily attacked?!?!"

What media were YOU watching? Jeez, even after the bulk of their claims were proven materially false (who you gonna believe, my smearing, partisan, 30-year-old trumped-up memories or the military's lyin' documentation?), the news media in general gave them a free pass.

I'm talking CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc etc etc. See here for an analysis of coverage: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3. Also see his archives for other examples.

Notably, Bob Somerby restricts his discussion to the media's performance and does not address actual political issues. He's not entirely non-partisan but he's pretty good at restricting his discussion to his disgust with the media in general.

Oh, it's hard to narrow it down to a small list.

The previously mentioned Talking Points Memo is quite good.

Also see:

Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum, formerly of Calpundit)
Altercation (what liberal media?)
Daily Howler
Columbia Journalism Review de-spins the media.
Juan Cole (very insightful Iraq commentary from this professor of history)
White House Briefing (political round-up)

FYI, for more information on the Reagan tax increases, see this article.

'INVENTING INVENTED THE INTERNET! No one said Boo about Gore's remark. Then,
the RNC spin-points arrived:'
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

The Web is not the Internet,
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2002/ Web_vs_Internet.asp

'Al Gore and the Internet', By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
http://www.spectacle.org/1100/gore.html

Here's text of some of Gore's legislation...
'High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 '
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:s.002 72:

'Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992'
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:s.029 37:

For example, Gore's '91 Act funded Marc Andreesen's group... they developed the NCSA Mosaic browser.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/andreesen.html
http://www.totic.org/nscp/demodoc/demo.html

You should educate yourself more on the subject, before making embarrasing posts. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that Joe Wilson...

A) Lied about his wife not recommending him for the job.
B) Didn't even have access to the forged Niger document that he denounced at that time.

Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that Iraq did indeed try to buy uranium from Niger, and that the forgeries may have been deliberately planted to discredit the real evidence. And this is all beside the point that Joe Wilson was singularly unqualified to carry out even a preliminary investigation.

Here's some nice commentary on the recent Joe Wilson revelations:

From a Right-Leaner: http://slate.msn.com/id/2103795/

From a Left-Leaner: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071204.shtml

BUMILLER: I think we were very deferential because...it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.

The Washington press corps took Gore's statement, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," and changed "initiative" to "invent" which makes it mean something else entirely. In fact it becomes an absurd statement, one the RNC was glad to jump on like flies on shit and paint Gore as a liar.

Go here and scroll down to "Where does spin come from? Inventing the Internet".

Scroll down to the part labeled "Where does spin come from? Inventing the Internet".

First from dictionary.com


initiative ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nsh-tv)
n.
The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task; enterprise and determination.
A beginning or introductory step; an opening move: took the initiative in trying to solve the problem.

The power or right to introduce a new legislative measure.
The right and procedure by which citizens can propose a law by petition and ensure its submission to the electorate.

adj.
Of or relating to initiation.
Used to initiate; initiatory.



You see the term initiative is dervied largely through legislation. Gore very clearly referred to creating legislation that brought the internet to it's flurition.

Specifically, Wolf Blitzer asked follow up question regardin this statment:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Gore said. "I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

So in terms of legislation, Gore took an early lead an spearheaded internet development on capital hill. Indeed Gore was the internet's champion in Washinton.

Not once has Al Gore ever used the term INVENT in regards to his role in the internet. That is a fabrication, better known as "spin" in Republican circles. It was part of a greater scheme to make Al Gore into a serial "liar".

Indeed, they tried to make Clinton into a serial liar. So far, they only lye they've EVER caught him in regarded Monica Lewinsky.

Yes CNN IS a right-wing media outlet owned by the mega-corporation AOL-TimeWarner. Don't believe a word they say. Though CNN doesn't go as far a being a propaganda outlet for Republicans like Fox News is.

This is what Rush Limbaugh means by "liberal-bias". Anybody who doesn't agree 100% with them is the enemy. For a great narrative on the situation, read "Blinded by the Right" by famous queer right-wing convert David Brock.

Tammy Bruce is a faux liberal who's on the payroll of the right wing as a lapdog to berate the left while claiming to be a leftist and a feminist. How can she be the voice of how feminism has gone wrong if she's a feminist herself? Her book, which you recommend, refers to heroes of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as totalitarian. She's full of shit. Looking over your arguments, so are you.

I think that your support of Cynthia McKinney speaks volumes about your ability to choose reliable leaders!
These are the lies of the lazy corporate right biased media.

Greg Palast on Cynthia McKinney Lies

BTW, Al Gore NEVER said he invented the Internet.
More Lies about Al Gore and the Internet

Oh yeah, and Jennifer Flowers is a liar. She never had an affair with Clinton. We just assumed she did because the media told us so.
Jennifer Flowers Can't keep her lies straight

For more instances of the lazy corporate right serving media, see www.dailyhowler.com

For more information on WHY the corporate media is lazy, right biased and overall DUMB, read "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right".

I think that your support of Cynthia McKinney speaks volumes about your ability to choose reliable leaders!
These are the lies of the lazy corporate right biased media.

Greg Palast on Cynthia McKinney Lies

BTW, Al Gore NEVER said he invented the Internet.
More Lies about Al Gore and the Internet

Oh yeah, and Jennifer Flowers is a liar. She never had an affair with Clinton. We just assumed she did because the media told us so.
Jennifer Flowers Can't keep her lies straight

For more instances of the lazy corporate right serving media, see www.dailyhowler.com

For more information on WHY the corporate media is lazy, right biased and overall DUMB, read "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right".

I think that your support of Cynthia McKinney speaks volumes about your ability to choose reliable leaders!
These are the lies of the lazy corporate right biased media.

Greg Palast on Cynthia McKinney Lies

BTW, Al Gore NEVER said he invented the Internet.
More Lies about Al Gore and the Internet

Oh yeah, and Jennifer Flowers is a liar. She never had an affair with Clinton. We just assumed she did because the media told us so.
Jennifer Flowers Can't keep her lies straight

For more instances of the lazy corporate right serving media, see www.dailyhowler.com

For more information on WHY the corporate media is lazy, right biased and overall DUMB, read "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right".

you have also asserted that you consider a nation where marijuana is free, but free speech is punished to be `more free'...

Not at all, I said that imprisonment for soft and prescription drug possession instead of treatment is more of a limitation on freedom than civil restrictions on speech. Now you are being dishonest.

Dean ... has said he will use government agencies like the FCC to go after television networks he disagrees with?

Ah, ha! You read the doctored transcript, didn't you?

Fox News Alert.
Perterson Case
Fox News Alert
Jackson Case
Fox News Alert
Toby Case
Fox News Alert
More Mindless crap.

Before 9/11, Faux News and others were spinning stories practically continuously, despite dire predictions by the Hart Rudman Commission and the Gore Report.

And this is coming from someone who in the past bought dish network so I could watch fox news. But that is before it turned into all trash, all the time.

Fox News Alert.
Perterson Case
Fox News Alert
Jackson Case
Fox News Alert
Toby Case
Fox News Alert
More Mindless crap.

Before 9/11, Faux News and others were spinning stories practically continuously, despite dire predictions by the Hart Rudman Commission and the Gore Report.

And this is coming from someone who in the past bought dish network so I could watch fox news. But that is before it turned into all trash, all the time.

1. That George W Bush cannot be held responsible for anything that the White House has said on his behalf, ie that GWB != White House. This strikes me as shirking responsibility, and if he hadn't agreed with what the White House was putting out, he had plenty of opportunities to correct the mistake. For details on what the White House said, take a gander here.

2. That George W Bush never used the words "imminent threat". This is simple slight-of-hand: change a question about what George W Bush was stating, and pretend it has to do with the wording he used. I'd write a lengthy set of quotes, with links, but I don't need to: take a look at what this guy has researched on the subject.

If either of the above arguments fails, then the claim that George W Bush never claimed Iraq's WMDs were an imminent threat before the war also fails. Both of the above arguments fail. The White House used the words "Imminent Threat", and even if the White House hadn't, the precise words used do not matter: what matters is that George W Bush made those claims.

Sorry Shrub, you can't dodge this one.

Check out the Daily Howler for details. And no, it's not a liberal website, but rather one that highlights ANYONE who is not shooting straight.

Check out the Daily Howler for details. And no, it's not a liberal website, but rather one that highlights ANYONE who is not shooting straight.

For example, if I polled whether George W. Bush claimed that Iraq's WMDs were an imminent threat before the war, I bet a very high perception of NPR listeners would answer yes, while a very low percentage of Fox watchers would answer yes. Does that mean that Fox watchers are better informed across the board than NPR listeners?

No, it means that Fox watchers are better at revisionist history.

Bernie's book has been slammed for poor examples all over the place. His methodology doesn't wash. E.g.: He claims there are more references to 'conservatives' in pubs like NYT than 'liberal', as if calling them out. However, he doesn't check to see if the converse holds true in a conservative rag like the Wash. Times [one would assume so, if the bias is truly 'liberal'].

Check out the Daily Howler for details. And no, it's not a liberal website, but rather one that highlights ANYONE who is not shooting straight.

I'll be the first to agree that all news media has some bias. Some is more slanted than others. But PLEASE, don't use Bernie as a good example of this.