Here's the thing - you're wrong. You're certain (certain enough to post this in multiple boards!) but you're still wrong.
"Everyone" did not believe that - Iraq certainly didn't believe it. They wrote a ten thousand page document that was mocked at the time, but is now considered the best documentation of what happened to Iraq's WMDs.
Scott Ritter didn't believe it. He was derided for "Drinking Saddam's Koolaid". I kind of think an intelligent, professional, conservative former weapons inspector saying that there was no proof Saddam had WMD invalidates your whole argument - but there's more!
Hans Blix was skeptical, because the US's intelligence tips weren't panning out. Do you remember the mockery the US piled on the "Clouseau-esque" weapons inspectors, who were never able to find evidence that Saddam was lying about having destroyed those weapons?
The French, if you'll check, were willing to come in with us if the US were willing to let the inspections work first. It wasn't.
The argument is particularly stupid when you step back a moment and say, "Why did 'the world' believe that Saddam still had WMDs?" Because the US told them! Most governments did not have intelligence assets inside Iraq. The phenomenon you're talking to was not global, and
(The difference between "sole reason" and "primary reason" is left an exercise for the student, as homework for Straw Men 101.)
All of the supplementary money that's budgeted for the Iraq war is just that - supplementary. Above and beyond what we usually pay. The next supplementary request is going to push that total over $200 billion early next year.
IMHO, you can safely use the supplements as a baseline for the increase in costs. There are, of course, additional costs - human costs, opportunity costs, and future obligations such as treatment of injured veterans.
The monthly burn rate of $5.8 billion includes quite a bit of money that we wouldn't be spending if the troops weren't deployed.
The real problem with your argument is that no one actually knows precisely where all that $5.8 billion a month is going. Supplementary funds are subject to less oversight and disclosure than the regular budget; this is what allowed Bush to $750 million earmarked for Afghanistan and use it to prepare for a war in Iraq.
(None of this, of course, counts the billions in Iraqi money that's gone missing.)
That was the headline, but the body of the actual report showed that a statewide recount would have elected Gore.
So would a count of clear overvotes (where Gore was circled and also written in). The article you cited mentioned that, but didn't mention that the Florida judge was strongly considering counting these overvotes where the intent of the voter could be determined (since that was the Florida standard).
What is without a doubt true is that more people went to the polls in Florida with the intent to cast their ballots for Gore.
Okay, this is really it for me - last post was going to be it, but I missed a few things and you said some things that aren't true.
I thought this to be a perfectly appropriate time, considering we're talking about this exact type of media issue.
But we're not - the hijacker statistic is about the past. It's about what has already happened. The draft statistic is about something that might happen, in the future. Which is not the past, and has not happened yet, and so by definition there can be disagreement about. People being suspicious of Bush's motives is not the same as being ignorant of the perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack on the US mainland.
I'm just going to ignore your challenge about the media saying the attackers were Iraqi, since that's completely not what I said. You're right, many sources did make clear how many of the attackers were Saudis. If I were to argue about why the confusion happened, I would say that those facts were underpromoted, and Bush/Cheney made a lot of implications of connection, and people filled in the gaps with what they wanted to believe.
But I'm not responsible for stating why that confusion happened. It did, and it's pretty clear that it did.
The "Dick Cheney gutting the military" involves the post-cold war draw down when he was secretary of defense. If you're confused, you aren't alone - the republicans blame Clinton for that cutback. Oh, and there was some number fudging on those recruitment goals, which also required lowering standards.
I know you'll think this is a GOP soundbite, but it's the truth: we were already in recession before Bush even took office. Every economist agrees; it was plain as day.
If you want me to spend my time replying to you, you're going to have to do a better job on your end. Particularly if you're taking the side of Newt Gingrich, who is far more responsible for the recession than Clinton.
Ah, yes, false balance. The need to find fault on both sides - where one side is egregiously at fault - is another bane of today's media, as well as unBiblical.
Worry about a draft is entirely reasonable; the all-volunteer military is severely overstretched. "Stop-loss" is keeping people in the military longer than they want to be, and even with hefty bonuses, the Army isn't going meet quotas.
I think what motivates people's unease is a gut sense of the numbers - since Dick Cheney gutted the military, we don't have the numbers required for an indefinite occupation of two countries. We're only where we are now thanks to an unprecedented callup of the National Guard and Reserves - if we needmore troops, where are they going to come from?
I'll grant you that by itself, re-appointing people to draft boards is no big deal. However, it is the height of foolishness to take this administration's word that everything is rosy - particularly given their track record with WMD and the economy. We're in a situation now where the US is delaying ground action in Fallujah until after the US election, for domestic political reasons.
Are you familiar with a "special skills draft"? I think it's even shown up on Slashdot. Take a look at the slightly contorted statements Bush is making - he's not ruling out a special skills draft, or even mandatory national service (military service optional).
Of course, the mainstream media wasn't bothered by the chairman of a party that controls all branches of government threatening legal action for stating an Unfact. I think that proves my point, which was that you can't be educated paying attention to the mainstream media.
What the hell? What is it with this knee-jerk CNN bashing. If they were the Communist News Network, or the Clinton News Network, don't you think they might have had a few more anti-war or skeptical candidates on? Almost half the country was against the war, but CNN - along with the other networks - had practically no dissenting voices.
Paula Zahn flat-out insulted Scott Ritter for his wacky "drinking the kool-aid claim" that Saddam didn't have WMD. Is this evidence that they were trying to "get" Bush?
Do you remember Iraqie Bob hugging the CNN reporter..
No, but I do recall Geraldo being thrown out of Iraq for endangering the troops.
CBS was trying to run with a scoop, and it blew up in their faces. If you don't know the name "Roger Stone", you should. Check Atrios's archives.
Irony alert - CBS pulled a story about Bush and the forged yellowcake documents in order to run the national guard story. As part of their groveling, they aren't running that story until after the election. Don't you wish that Republicans were as concerned about the president using forged documents?
As Bob Heinlein put it, if everyone knows something, it probably ain't so.
Talking about whether or not you think they're "doing their jobs" is really an exercise in futility, because depending on a person's politics, they're going to have varying degrees of disagreement on this
There are things that are debatable, and should be debated - not shouted. There are other things that are just true, and the media should slap down people who try to assert that black is white, up is down, etc.
If people had a foundation in common facts - the economy is doing X, the war in Iraq is going Y - then it's possible to have a reasoned debate about issues. However, if people in this country live in different fact worlds depending on where (or whether!) they get their news, debate is unpossible.
I hate to break it to you, but the New York Times is not some conservative propaganda mouthpiece.
Well, if they aren't a conservative propaganda mouthpiece, why do they unquestioningly repeat conservative propaganda?
They do other things as well, and they're no Wall Street Journal editorial page, but the liberal/conservative "bias" in the media is trivial. The real media biases are laziness and greed.
There are complicated issues going on - and the choice is more complicated than "leave them alone" or "invade Iraq, give the money to Halliburton, and hire Republicans to rebuild it". The first rule of holes is to stop digging once you're in one!
I think if you look, you'll find that freedom of the things you mention are in short supply in Iraq. Faith-based science and faith-based foreign policy are no substitute for a well-informed public, and I argue that it is impossible for that public to be well-informed by the American media today.
The state of journalism today is an absolute embarassment. It's all about being servants to the powerful, not comforting the powerless and watching the powerful.
Stewart is concerned about TV news - he parodies it. If the media looked at the funhouse mirror, they might think about what they're doing. He came on to talk seriously about them.
I don't think that "tough questions" was the focus of what Stewart was saying - just that shouting head journalism was hurting America. There is a line between infotainment and disinfotainment, but I'll definitely agree that neither one is truly informative.
IMHO, the primary problem with modern US journalism - and this ties into shouting heads - is that no one is willing to say that X is true. The media would much rather say "Well, the Republicans say X, the Democrats say Y", and then punt their responsibilities.
Some people watch the daily show for news because they like to be infotained; other people realize the layers of BS caking the mainstream media. Me, I don't rely on the US media to tell me what color the sky is. (Although I do have to recommend this article on the faith-based presidentcy.
It's by that bastion of the truth that brought us Judith Miller, Whitewater, and Wen Ho Lee. What was that about the Daily Show being pathetic?
CNN is not a liberal news network, even if it once was.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040104.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101304.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082404.shtml
They consistently pander to the right wing to try to get their market share back.
If we can't criticize him because he's on Comedy Central, then why should we listen to any serious arguments from him, seeing as he's on Comedy Central?
What qualifications would you like a US citizen to meet before he's allowed to make commentary?
I'd bet you haven't watched the clip - Tucker Carlson was accusing him of asking Kerry softball questions. The "puppets" line is Stewart's response to questions about his journalistic responsibility. Nothing in what he said implied no one could criticize him - merely that his show was not a "real news show".
The scary thing is that the Daily Show has treated the Swift Boat liars story more professionally than the mainstream media.
You really should watch the clip - you can't get the full impact from the transcript.
Crossfire is "shouting head" journalism - nothing is resolved, people shout at each other. It's two parallel shows, there's no illumination of issues.
What I find funny is that his political views and the network he just attacked are one in the same.
What are you talking about? CNN may have once been left-leaning, but they've been trying to out-fox Fox in recent years. Anyway, the main biases the media has are laziness and greed.
PS - I know someone who is shocked at how little is taken out of their paycheck in the US - but they're from a country that has universal health care.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the thing - you're wrong. You're certain (certain enough to post this in multiple boards!) but you're still wrong.
"Everyone" did not believe that - Iraq certainly didn't believe it. They wrote a ten thousand page document that was mocked at the time, but is now considered the best documentation of what happened to Iraq's WMDs.
Scott Ritter didn't believe it. He was derided for "Drinking Saddam's Koolaid". I kind of think an intelligent, professional, conservative former weapons inspector saying that there was no proof Saddam had WMD invalidates your whole argument - but there's more!
Hans Blix was skeptical, because the US's intelligence tips weren't panning out. Do you remember the mockery the US piled on the "Clouseau-esque" weapons inspectors, who were never able to find evidence that Saddam was lying about having destroyed those weapons?
The French, if you'll check, were willing to come in with us if the US were willing to let the inspections work first. It wasn't.
The argument is particularly stupid when you step back a moment and say, "Why did 'the world' believe that Saddam still had WMDs?" Because the US told them! Most governments did not have intelligence assets inside Iraq. The phenomenon you're talking to was not global, and
(The difference between "sole reason" and "primary reason" is left an exercise for the student, as homework for Straw Men 101.)
IMHO, you can safely use the supplements as a baseline for the increase in costs. There are, of course, additional costs - human costs, opportunity costs, and future obligations such as treatment of injured veterans.
The monthly burn rate of $5.8 billion includes quite a bit of money that we wouldn't be spending if the troops weren't deployed. The real problem with your argument is that no one actually knows precisely where all that $5.8 billion a month is going. Supplementary funds are subject to less oversight and disclosure than the regular budget; this is what allowed Bush to $750 million earmarked for Afghanistan and use it to prepare for a war in Iraq. (None of this, of course, counts the billions in Iraqi money that's gone missing.)
So would a count of clear overvotes (where Gore was circled and also written in). The article you cited mentioned that, but didn't mention that the Florida judge was strongly considering counting these overvotes where the intent of the voter could be determined (since that was the Florida standard).
What is without a doubt true is that more people went to the polls in Florida with the intent to cast their ballots for Gore.
I thought this to be a perfectly appropriate time, considering we're talking about this exact type of media issue.
But we're not - the hijacker statistic is about the past. It's about what has already happened. The draft statistic is about something that might happen, in the future. Which is not the past, and has not happened yet, and so by definition there can be disagreement about. People being suspicious of Bush's motives is not the same as being ignorant of the perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack on the US mainland.
I'm just going to ignore your challenge about the media saying the attackers were Iraqi, since that's completely not what I said. You're right, many sources did make clear how many of the attackers were Saudis. If I were to argue about why the confusion happened, I would say that those facts were underpromoted, and Bush/Cheney made a lot of implications of connection, and people filled in the gaps with what they wanted to believe.
But I'm not responsible for stating why that confusion happened. It did, and it's pretty clear that it did.
The "Dick Cheney gutting the military" involves the post-cold war draw down when he was secretary of defense. If you're confused, you aren't alone - the republicans blame Clinton for that cutback. Oh, and there was some number fudging on those recruitment goals, which also required lowering standards.
I know you'll think this is a GOP soundbite, but it's the truth: we were already in recession before Bush even took office. Every economist agrees; it was plain as day.
Really! I did not know that the National Bureau of Economic Research was not made up of economists! I guess that means Paul Krugman is not an economist, but Newt Gingrich is.
If you want me to spend my time replying to you, you're going to have to do a better job on your end. Particularly if you're taking the side of Newt Gingrich, who is far more responsible for the recession than Clinton.
I think what motivates people's unease is a gut sense of the numbers - since Dick Cheney gutted the military, we don't have the numbers required for an indefinite occupation of two countries. We're only where we are now thanks to an unprecedented callup of the National Guard and Reserves - if we need more troops, where are they going to come from?
I'll grant you that by itself, re-appointing people to draft boards is no big deal. However, it is the height of foolishness to take this administration's word that everything is rosy - particularly given their track record with WMD and the economy. We're in a situation now where the US is delaying ground action in Fallujah until after the US election, for domestic political reasons.
Are you familiar with a "special skills draft"? I think it's even shown up on Slashdot. Take a look at the slightly contorted statements Bush is making - he's not ruling out a special skills draft, or even mandatory national service (military service optional).
Did you know that the chairman of the RNC threatened legal action against Rock the Vote for trying to use a threat of a draft to motivate college students? Do you feel comfortable with political parties deciding what is or isn't acceptible speech?
Of course, the mainstream media wasn't bothered by the chairman of a party that controls all branches of government threatening legal action for stating an Unfact. I think that proves my point, which was that you can't be educated paying attention to the mainstream media.
Paula Zahn flat-out insulted Scott Ritter for his wacky "drinking the kool-aid claim" that Saddam didn't have WMD. Is this evidence that they were trying to "get" Bush?
Do you remember Iraqie Bob hugging the CNN reporter..
No, but I do recall Geraldo being thrown out of Iraq for endangering the troops.
CBS was trying to run with a scoop, and it blew up in their faces. If you don't know the name "Roger Stone", you should. Check Atrios's archives.
Irony alert - CBS pulled a story about Bush and the forged yellowcake documents in order to run the national guard story. As part of their groveling, they aren't running that story until after the election. Don't you wish that Republicans were as concerned about the president using forged documents?
As Bob Heinlein put it, if everyone knows something, it probably ain't so.
I hope we can agree that when a significant chunk of the country believes something that is provably not true, the media is not doing its job. 44% of Americans believe that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis - don't you agree that shows an inarguable problem?
There are things that are debatable, and should be debated - not shouted. There are other things that are just true, and the media should slap down people who try to assert that black is white, up is down, etc.
If people had a foundation in common facts - the economy is doing X, the war in Iraq is going Y - then it's possible to have a reasoned debate about issues. However, if people in this country live in different fact worlds depending on where (or whether!) they get their news, debate is unpossible.
I hate to break it to you, but the New York Times is not some conservative propaganda mouthpiece.
Well, if they aren't a conservative propaganda mouthpiece, why do they unquestioningly repeat conservative propaganda?
They do other things as well, and they're no Wall Street Journal editorial page, but the liberal/conservative "bias" in the media is trivial. The real media biases are laziness and greed.
Look at "anonymous sources" That's not journalism, and that's definitely not freedom of information.
There are complicated issues going on - and the choice is more complicated than "leave them alone" or "invade Iraq, give the money to Halliburton, and hire Republicans to rebuild it". The first rule of holes is to stop digging once you're in one!
I think if you look, you'll find that freedom of the things you mention are in short supply in Iraq. Faith-based science and faith-based foreign policy are no substitute for a well-informed public, and I argue that it is impossible for that public to be well-informed by the American media today.
The state of journalism today is an absolute embarassment. It's all about being servants to the powerful, not comforting the powerless and watching the powerful.
Stewart is concerned about TV news - he parodies it. If the media looked at the funhouse mirror, they might think about what they're doing. He came on to talk seriously about them.
I don't think that "tough questions" was the focus of what Stewart was saying - just that shouting head journalism was hurting America. There is a line between infotainment and disinfotainment, but I'll definitely agree that neither one is truly informative.
IMHO, the primary problem with modern US journalism - and this ties into shouting heads - is that no one is willing to say that X is true. The media would much rather say "Well, the Republicans say X, the Democrats say Y", and then punt their responsibilities.
Some people watch the daily show for news because they like to be infotained; other people realize the layers of BS caking the mainstream media. Me, I don't rely on the US media to tell me what color the sky is. (Although I do have to recommend this article on the faith-based presidentcy.
It's by that bastion of the truth that brought us Judith Miller, Whitewater, and Wen Ho Lee. What was that about the Daily Show being pathetic?
CNN is not a liberal news network, even if it once was. http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040104.shtml http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101304.shtml http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082404.shtml They consistently pander to the right wing to try to get their market share back.