Democrats to Bush: Don't pardon Libby [title changed]

[Chanda]

I read every link you posted regardless of what my personal feelings are about them.

So, from the time I posted at 9:49, you had time to read 5 lengthy articles and compose your own response to me before you posted at 9:58? Your speed reading skills are amazing.

My issue is that the NYT is so bias and lies that I don't believe anything they write.

The irony is that the article I posted was obviously and shamelessy biased in favor of Bush. The NORC researchers found in a 9-month exhaustive count of all Florida ballots that Gore had more votes than Bush. Accurately, the headline should have read NORC STUDY FINDS REAL WINNER WAS GORE. Instead, the NYT crafted a misleading (and inaccurate) headline and buried the NORC study findings deep on the second page.

Would you take a link I posted from a site like Little Green Footballs or Michele Malkin or Drudge

The NYT and LA Times are world class newspapers. You can't seriously compare them to internet blogs.

As for the LA Times read this. It takes an article written by the Times and shows all the lies, half-truths and distortions.

Patterico’s Pontifications » Is the L.A. Times Repeating Enemy Propaganda? Or Is There Another Reason The Paper Is Getting Basic Facts Wrong and Failing to Report the Military’s Side?

This is what you call he said/he said

As for realchange.org they admit on the site that it has not been updated since 2004

Allegations about Bush's history are just as accurate now has they were in 2004.

As for Mother Jones I can't take a "news" organization seriously when one their information is from the NYT and when they post pictures like this all over their site.

Mother Jones is an investigative magazine. It doesn't get its information from the NYT. Furthermore, you admit that you won't take seriously any source that presents Bush or the administration in a negative light. You are the one with the bias, and you will never learn the truth about Bush by filtering out negative information.

 

[Just Me 2]

So, from the time I posted at 9:49, you had time to read 5 lengthy articles and compose your own response to me before you posted at 9:58? Your speed reading skills are amazing.

What are you talking about the last post you have with that many links was 3/15 at 9:49 pm I didn't respond saying that I had read them until yesterday 3/16 at 9:38 am. That's more than 24 hours.

The irony is that the article I posted was obviously and shamelessy biased in favor of Bush. The NORC researchers found in a 9-month exhaustive count of all Florida ballots that Gore had more votes than Bush. Accurately, the headline should have read NORC STUDY FINDS REAL WINNER WAS GORE. Instead, the NYT crafted a misleading (and inaccurate) headline and buried the NORC study findings deep on the second page.

No irony the NYT lies. That is the fact. I don't trust what they say regardless of how you feel it was slanted.

The NYT and LA Times are world class newspapers. You can't seriously compare them to internet blogs.

It doesn't mean that they don't lie and distort the truth it has been proven.

This is what you call he said/he said

Ok so now you see where I am coming from.

Allegations about Bush's history are just as accurate now has they were in 2004.

Although I didn't investigate all of them I'm pretty sure that some additional information has come out about some of those allegations.

Mother Jones is an investigative magazine. It doesn't get its information from the NYT. Furthermore, you admit that you won't take seriously any source that presents Bush or the administration in a negative light. You are the one with the bias, and you will never learn the truth about Bush by filtering out negative information.

Incorrect I have no problem with Bush being shown in a negative light so long as it is done using accurate and non-distorted truths. These papers have a history of telling half-truths and doing for the sole purpose of making Bush and Republicans look bad. Show me something from Fox, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Weekly Standard and I'll believe it much faster then the ones you posted.

 

[Chanda]

No irony the NYT lies. That is the fact. I don't trust what they say regardless of how you feel it was slanted.

Yes, irony, that you would complain about NYT's bias when the article I posted was extremely biased in favor of Bush. It buried the lead to cover up the fact that Bush wasn't actually elected in 2000. The NYT was also biased in its pro-war coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq war. There was little or no coverage of anti-war views.

Consider this. How do you know for a fact that the NYT and LA Times lie and distort the truth about Bush to make him look bad? How do you know it was the NYT lying instead of the right wing media? Because the right wing media told you so? Isn't that more he said/he said? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the right wing media distorts the truth to make the Democrats look bad?

Show me something from Fox, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Weekly Standard and I'll believe it much faster then the ones you posted

These are all right wing sites, and they all have ties to Bush. The Weekly Standard editor is Bill Kristol who founded PNAC. That paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News. Bill Kristol's father, neocon Irving Kristol, is a regular contributor to WSJ's op-ed page. The owner of the Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon has claimed to be the Messiah and aspires to dominate the world. He and the Bush family have an alliance:

"South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon has long boasted of his ability to "hook" politicians by putting money into their pockets and into their political machines. But Moon's most important catch may have come from the millions of dollars sunk into the powerful Bush family -- and the subsequent lack of U.S. interest in evidence of Moon's criminal activities."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html

This is a reliable source, one of the best on the net, but you can google Sun Myung Moon if you don't like my links.

Both liberals and conservatives complain about the traditional media, and it is far from perfect, but it is the most trusted overall by consumers.

 

[Just Me 2]

Yes, irony, that you would complain about NYT's bias when the article I posted was extremely biased in favor of Bush. It buried the lead to cover up the fact that Bush wasn't actually elected in 2000. The NYT was also biased in its pro-war coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq war. There was little or no coverage of anti-war views.

Consider this. How do you know for a fact that the NYT and LA Times lie and distort the truth about Bush to make him look bad? How do you know it was the NYT lying instead of the right wing media? Because the right wing media told you so? Isn't that more he said/he said? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the right wing media distorts the truth to make the Democrats look bad?

I posted some of the things that the NYT has lied about.

These are all right wing sites, and they all have ties to Bush. The Weekly Standard editor is Bill Kristol who founded PNAC. That paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News. Bill Kristol's father, neocon Irving Kristol, is a regular contributor to WSJ's op-ed page. The owner of the Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon has claimed to be the Messiah and aspires to dominate the world. He and the Bush family have an alliance:


"South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon has long boasted of his ability to "hook" politicians by putting money into their pockets and into their political machines. But Moon's most important catch may have come from the millions of dollars sunk into the powerful Bush family -- and the subsequent lack of U.S. interest in evidence of Moon's criminal activities."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html

This is a reliable source, one of the best on the net, but you can google Sun Myung Moon if you don't like my links.

Both liberals and conservatives complain about the traditional media, and it is far from perfect, but it is the most trusted overall by consumers.

I keep getting a page load error on your link.

So we both can rip apart the sources. I don't trust yours, you don't trust mine. So now what.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

If Libby did or didn't leak the info then Libby or who ever did should be sent to live in Syria. Any leak will put all of our agents in harms way and they will never get anyone to trust them again.

 

[Chanda]

So we both can rip apart the sources. I don't trust yours, you don't trust mine. So now what.

What now? You will continue to believe that Bush-supporting, PNAC-based and Moonie sources are the gospel truth, and I will abandon my efforts to reason with you because:

"The worse things become, the more tenaciously true believers cling to their views of Him. A tragedy like 9/11 might make others question their faith, but not the Bush disciples. A dangerous world increases the need for comfort, and if filling that need requires a belief in the objectively false (like Saddam-9/11 links, or Iraqi WMDs), so be it. Pointing out that Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11, or has made us less safe with his new crusade, is unavailing. The faithful vest in the object of their faith attributes based not on reality, but the size of the hole they expect him to fill. A sickening spiral ensues: the further Bush drifts from the moorings of reality, the stronger the support from his disciples becomes.

"...The normal tools of persuasion are ineffective with (Church of Bush) fundamentalists. Facts are dismissed as challenges to their faith; exposing flaws in Bush’s character only deepens their conviction. The Church of Bush encourages the faithful to see themselves as a minority persecuted for their beliefs (e.g., the “liberal media” shibboleth), and to be resolute in resisting the infidels. The lies and transgressions of bishops like O’Reilly and Limbaugh are easily forgiven, because they help the flock to keep the faith. And that faith, more than financial self-interest or the Constitution or world peace, is the thing they most want to protect."

The Raw Story | The Church of Bush