Wow, that's a long title.
Anyway, lo and behold, within two hours of returning to blogging, I've already found something to write about. Little Green Footballs directed me to this story. Excerpt:
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
So, first of all, despite the current liberal talking point that most people are now squarely on the anti-war/anti-Bush side, many still see the Democrats' ignorance as dangerous. But since LGF already covered that aspect (follow the link for more), I'd like to examine another part of the story. Let's look at the first paragraph again:
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.
Now, if you weren't paying attention, you'd probably think Cheney had suggested that any criticism of the war is a "hindrance to the war effort." After all, aren't liberals constantly claiming that the administration has labelled any type of dissent unpatriotic?
However, if you aren't a mindless drone, and you actually bother to think once in a while, you're probably capable of checking this insinuation against what the vice president actually said:
I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way....Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place...What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.
So, let's think about this: The survey in the article asked people if criticism of the war hurts the war effort, and the article itself suggests that this is Cheney's position. However, Cheney said that criticism is good for the country, but deliberately lying about the war in order to score political points is irresponsible.
Oh, but Cheney still suggested that some type of criticism hurts troop morale, just like the article says, right?
Wrong:
One might also argue that untruthful charges against the Commander-in-Chief have an insidious effect on the war effort itself. I'm unwilling to say that, only because I know the character of the United States Armed Forces -- men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. They haven't wavered in the slightest, and their conduct should make all Americans proud. They are absolutely relentless in their duties, and they are carrying out their missions with all the skill and the honor we expect of them.
Thanks, MSM, for once again proving that you have absolutely no idea how to be objective.
You know, when people point out that the media coverage of the War on Terror seems to be biased against President Bush, liberals resort to a variety of explanations. One explanation I've heard a few times (on the Internet and in real life) is that it only seems that way because car bombs and dead soldiers make more sensational and attention-grabbing news than the opening of a school or a group of Iraqis cheering as Americans drive by.
You know what I think of that? BULLSHIT.
I've considered it, and it is a valid argument, but the events of the past few days have pretty much shot down the whole "the media only appears biased because stories about death and destruction are more interesting" line.
Allow me to explain. I don't want to over-politicize Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent rescue efforts, but the media coverage of the whole thing serves as an excellent example of their true feelings.
For example, I was sitting in the food court eating dinner this afternoon, and the TV a few feet away from me happened to be showing a news broadcast (I'm not sure which channel it was, but I'm almost positive it wasn't FOX, so draw your own conclusions). I listened for about 15 minutes, and the majority of the time was spent discussing 1) Democrats' attacks on President Bush regarding the response to the hurricane and 2) the effect of this event on Bush's approval rating.
Let's think about this for a second. If it's true that deadly events are a priority for the media, and this just makes it appear that they're out to get Bush, then why aren't they spending more time covering the destruction left in the wake of the hurricane? It seems to me that they're once again revealing their true agenda.
I'm not basing this on an isolated, personal incident, of course. Look at the more widespread news coverage of this event, and you'll probably notice that more stories seem to be about the political aspect of the disaster than the details surrounding the fact that A FUCKING AMERICAN CITY IS UNDERWATER.
If that doesn't at least make you consider the possibility of a liberal media, I doubt you'll ever change your mind anyway.
So, you know those anti-American protests taking place across the Muslim world right now? The ones that have resulted in several deaths? It seems that they may have been protesting an event that never happened.
Way to go, Newsweek. Your unsubstantiated allegations have led to the loss of innocent life. But hey, as long as America looks bad, it's okay, right?
I hope you soulless vultures choke on your own fucking vomit.
(Don't think I'm not mad at the protesters as well; I just realize that if it weren't for Newsweek, none of this would be happening)
((Hat tip: LGF))
This is just...wow. A freakin' G.I. Joe fooled the MSM.
A G.I. F**KING JOE. FOOLED. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
This is the most surreal thing I've seen in weeks. Holy crap.
Every time I think I've become desensitized to the mind-boggling stupidity of people, something else catches me totally off guard.
For example, this:
Cheney's Green Parka and Boots Stand OutVice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s utilitarian hooded parka and boots stood out amid the solemn formality of a ceremony commemorating the liberation of Nazi death camps, raising eyebrows among the fashion-conscious.
Cheney replaced the zipped-to-the-neck green parka he sported in Thursday's blowing snow and freezing wind with a more traditional black coat — red tie and gray scarf showing underneath — for his tour of Auschwitz on Friday.
Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan described Cheney's look at the deeply moving 60th anniversary service as "the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower."
"Cheney stood out in a sea of black-coated world leaders because he was wearing an olive drab parka with a fur-trimmed hood," Givhan wrote in Friday's Post, also mocking Cheney's knit ski cap embroidered with the words "Staff 2001" and his brown, lace-up hiking boots. "The vice president looked like an awkward child amid the well-dressed adults," she said.
Is this a friggin' joke? With all the problems facing the world today, you @sshats are criticizing the vice president for wearing a green f**king coat?!
I don't even know what to say at this point. Just...get a life, you wastes of space.
Allow me to paraphrase the majority of NYT Letters about the CBS forgery situation:
Yeah, maybe CBS screwed up, but that's no reason to stop pretending that Bush's National Guard Service is relevant to current political issues! And by the way, the war in Iraq is still wrong! HA! We win!
How do these brainwashed sycophants summon up enough mental energy to operate a keyboard?
Even if you've heard about the reporter who fed a misleading question to a soldier at Donald Rumsfeld's press conference, you may still be concerned about the substance of his question. Do our troops have adequate armor, and are they being put in danger by the administration? CavalierX, as usual, has all the facts. Here's a little something to get you started:
Fortunately (for our military; unfortunately for our media), HMMWVs that haven't yet been up-armored are not driven, but carted on flatbed trucks to a safe area. Any concerns the soldiers might have had came not from their own experience -- since they hadn't been in Iraq yet -- but from the media misrepresentation. The fearmongering media created the worries they then reported as "legitimate concerns." Reporters like Pitts (and there are far too many like him) have long ago forgotten anything they knew about journalistic integrity. Instead of reporting facts fairly and accurately, they create the news to further their agenda, engaging in a "gotcha" game designed to attack those with whom they disagree.
There's a lot more, so go over and check it out.
You know, when I saw that part of the Patriot Act had been ruled unconstitutional, I assumed that it had happened because of irrational fear on the part of the courts. I didn't realize that it hadn't actually happened at all.
Look, media, just give it up, all right? In the past month, you've relied on phony documents to try and pin an AWOL accusation on the president, you've relied on phony e-mails to try and convince people that Bush wants to reinstate the draft, and now you've confused the Patriot Act with a law that was passed in Nineteen-Eighty-Motherf**king-Six.
GIVE IT UP. I realize that us bloggers still need you to give us the information, but don't act like you have a monopoly on the unbiased truth. You're all human, just like us, and humans tend to be stupid and opinionated. Accept that fact and, as your "non-partisan" friends would say, move on. @ssclowns.
Patterico brings up an interesting point. When people accuse Fox News of being biased to the right, they seem to use commentators like Hannity and O'Reilly as examples. However, they forget that commentators are supposed to be biased.
In contrast, accusations of liberal bias are directed at people like Dan Rather and organizations like the AP, both of which claim to be neutral.
Can you see the difference here? It's really not that hard to figure out.