If things are going so great in Iraq, why do General David Petraeus and Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker need to retreat to Fox News to play a game of journalistic softball for an “exclusive” interview tonight? I mean, with such great news, why not share it with the rest of the news consuming public that who doesn’t watch a biased cable entertainment channel that pretends it’s a real news organization?
It’s becoming clearer by the day that despite administration attempts to paint him as the latest savior of their Iraq policy, he’s really just nothing more than a public relations shill for the Bush White House who’s only interest is in keeping this war going as long as possible while pushing American troops literally to the breaking point.
For Americans who suspected that the big “September Progress Report” was nothing more than a political song and dance, their suspicions are now confirmed, and the Bush White House isn’t even interested in pretending that it’s not anymore.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
This guy took an oath and testified before Congress. It’s apparent you are part of the “left wing noise machine”.
he’s really just nothing more than a public relations shill for the Bush White House
Wow! Quite a statement.
Here’s the way I see this whole situation … the Democrats have put their entire hopes for 2008 in the US failing in Iraq. Any good news from Iraq is bad news for you guys. So, you have degenerated into painting a four star general as a liar, puppet, etc. Pretty sad.
That’s the same thing I heard on Rush yesterday. The only part you’re missing is how “the democrat party owns defeat”.
“So, you have degenerated into painting a four star general as a liar, puppet, etc.”
You mean like when Jean Schmidt inferred John Murtha was a coward? Or when the Swift Boaters torpedoed Kerry’s presidential campaign? Or when Al Gore’s military service was brushed under the rug because he was “just a reporter”?
Look, pick your poison, Yeah Boy. Can’t have it both ways. If you feel it’s fair to undermine the credibility or military expertise of your ideological opponents, then don’t cry foul when it happens to your own peeps, ok?
“the democrat party owns defeatâ€
lol … I don’t care who you are, that statement is funny. “owns” defeat. hehe. Good one, Dan.
Les – I guess what I am shocked by is this … I don’t care about the Swiftboat Vets or Jean Schmidt (whoever THAT is), but to have a friend stoop down this low is very troubling for me. I really don’t know how to feel.
Cedibility isn’t measured by the number of stars on your shoulder, and it doesn’t make you immune to criticism.
Cedibility isn’t measured by the number of stars on your shoulder, and it doesn’t make you immune to criticism.
It also is not measured by what TV station you have an interview on. Dan – this guy testified before Congress to report all of the information Americans need to hear. He then shows up to do an interview with Fox News and you besmurged this guy. That is horrible – and obvious politics.
Based on your analysis, anybody who does an interview on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC or CNN should lose all credibility because they are obviously part of the left wing noise machine, right? That makes no sense and neither does disparaging this man just because he chooses to do an interview on Fox News.
I’d agree with Dan on this one. If only since each general who’s gone against the administration up to this point has soon afterward been replaced or decided to retire.
Could be a coincidence, of course. But Petraeus does seem to have much more support from Bush than the others before him.
It floors me that just because the lead commander in Iraq has a report that 1) is similar to White House policy and strategy, and 2) doesn’t agree with your expert assessment, you feel the need to criticize him. Quite frankly I don’t think anything other than completely pulling the 130,000 soldiers out of Iraq, retreating, and surrendering would have made you or any other democrat (except Lieberman….any yes he’s a democrat) happy.
Quite frankly I don’t think anything other than completely pulling the 130,000 soldiers out of Iraq, retreating, and surrendering would have made you or any other democrat (except Lieberman….any yes he’s a democrat) happy.
No no no, Sean .. you obviously don’t get it. If Bush did THAT, they would complain about his troop withdrawal and how we need to stay there. You see, liberals (and modern-day Democrats) don’t actually have a stance, they just complain about decisions that are made.
I’d agree with Dan on this one.
Just to be clear .. so, you agree that 1) by General Petraeus going on Fox News for an interview, that makes him a part of the “Right Wing Noise Machine”? 2) A four star general, who has the trust and respect of his troops wants to “keep this war going as long as possible”, thereby keeping the (wo)men he is responsible for in harms way as long as possible? 3) His testimony is nothing more than a “song and dance”, by extension you are saying General Patraeus is lying under oath.
Yeah Boy, interesting take, and not one that I can necessarily disagree with. But at least the wording in this blog is not nearly as disgraceful as the liberal mouthpiece, MoveOn……
Yeah Boy,
You’re right, I need to clarify. #3 it is. Not necessarily that he’s giving this testimony because he was told to. It could be that he’s always agreed with the Bush position, and that’s how he got the position to begin with.
But in either case, I think he’s providing a false assessment.
And don’t say that it’s completely out of the realm of possibility that a politician or a general would mislead (knowingly or not) the public and the Congress about the conduct and prospects of a war effort. See Vietnam for multiple examples of just this.
anybody who does an interview on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC or CNN should lose all credibility because they are obviously part of the left wing noise machine, right?
Of course you’re right. ABC et. all is as equally “BIASED MSM” as Fox News is. Up is down and down is up for you guys, and that’s great and all, but it’s a view that isn’t shared much outside of those who actually watch and believe everything they hear on Fox. And that’s a hell of a straw man argument.
I mean, it’s been a fun time over the past six years having this debate and all, but the problem is that the vast majority of people share my view that Fox news is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Republican party. The fact that you still even try to attempt to argue against that is only further proof that you choose to deny the reality of what you really know in your own heart, but choose to disavow in hopes of advancing your arguments as above. So good luck with that.
And by the way, Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat, despite Fox “news” continuing to label him as such, again, to advance their goal. He ran and won as an independent Senator, beating out the Republican and Democrat in the race. He chooses to caucus with the Democrats only because he knows that he’d be a pariah in the minority Republican party in 2008 and he doesn’t want to lose his precious committee assignments. Trust me, you can have him, and he seems like just your kind of guy.
Decrying “partisanship” then going to a “Freedom Concert” with people like Ann Coulter, Oliver North, Newt Gingrich, and Sean Hannity. The kind of people who you choose to hold up as the epitome of unbiased news commentators that regularly appear on your network of choice. How dare anyone questions your pet network when principled people like that are some of their featured, and believe it or not, less radical, guests!
Thanks for the clarification, Scott. I would not argue you could be right.
Yeah Boy, interesting take, and not one that I can necessarily disagree with. But at least the wording in this blog is not nearly as disgraceful as the liberal mouthpiece, MoveOn……
Funny you should mention this blog and MoveOn in the same (figurative) breath … the link Dan provided in the initial post is to thinkprogress.org. Not sure if you know about them, but they are a Moveon.org “sister” and each are financed by …. *drum roll* … you guessed it George Soros. “It [thinkprogess.org] also draws freely on the resources of the George Soros-funded Media Matters website edited by David Brock.”
For more information, head over to Discover the networks’ website.
One other thing, I think it’s hilarious that every other news organization is 1.) Always wrong and 2.) Always biased, and that Fox news isn’t part of the “MSM!@#”
…and it was only a matter of time before the “George Soros conspiracy theory” made it into the comments, making my initial comment about Rush all the more hilarious. I just ask that you keep it to a minimum here so he keeps sending me checks for advancing his march to global liberal domination!
These comments have been very revealing. After looking over all of the comments regarding this blog, I have not seen one mention, from anyone, indicating that Fox does not have a conservative message. What I have seen is the blatant denial that ABC, NBC, CNN, etc is the mouth piece of the left. I also have not seen a comment listed here indicating that every other news organization is wrong, always biased, and/or Fox News isn’t part of the MSM. What I fail to comprehend is the hostility towards a news organization that is on the other side of the political spectrum. I realize that Fox has a conservative agenda, AND I realize that the other organizations, referenced ad nauseum, have a liberal agenda. That’s why I watch both, and read both liberal and conservative blogs. What I and many other people understand is that there are two sides, and that’s OK, but don’t try and hold the NY Times, ABC’s, and NBC’s of the world, up to be unbiased reporting……it insults the intelligence of the average American.
As for “good ol’ Joe”, check his voting record on everything but the war in Iraq, and you’ll see a dyed in the wool democrat. Dan: “He ran and won as an independent Senator, beating out the Republican and Democrat in the race. He chooses to caucus with the Democrats only because he knows that he’d be a pariah in the minority Republican Party in 2008 and he doesn’t want to lose his precious committee assignments.” Funny, I seem to recall him wanting to run as a democrat but because he didn’t toe the company line, the DEMOCRATIC Party decided to make him a pariah. Heck, Rudi G is less of a Republican than Lieberman’s a democrat, and he’s not being run out of his party (at least for now).
Just because a network isn’t as conservative as Fox doesn’t make it “liberal”. That’s the reasoning I’ve never been able to understand regarding Fox: Anything that is less conservative than Fox MUST be “liberal”!!
Just like anything that isn’t Fox or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal or any non-conservative news outlet is the “MSM”.
RE: Lieberman, he did run as a Democrat in the primary. He lost. He then decided to run anyways as an independent and really started towing the conservative line. That’s what made him a pariah in the Democratic Party.
Dan: “Just because a network isn’t as conservative as Fox doesn’t make it “liberalâ€.”, but that’s not the case with NBC, ABC, CBS, and the like. In my opinion, it’s not that they are not as conservative as Fox, they are just plain liberal. Also realize the reason some people do not define Fox, the WSJ or the Wash Post as MSM is because the WSJ isn’t the size of the NY Times, Fox isn’t as large as CBS, NBC, or ABC, and the Washington Post isn’t the LA Times. It is because of their size that they can be, rightfully so, be referred to as the MSM, where the others are watched and read by less people. I don’t necessarily agree with that reasoning, but for me it doesn’t make any difference. Bottom line, for me, is Fox is on one side of the political spectrum and the others that have been referenced, are on the other, period.
As for Lieberman, I actually think you make my point. He was tossed aside before the primary. Basically he lost as a democrat, because the leaders in the democratic party (the Hillary Clinton’s, Barbara Boxer’s, Dianne Feinstein’s, etc) made a point of supporting his challenger simply because he didn’t vote the way he was “supposed to”. If that isn’t making him a pariah in the democratic party I don’t know what is. Besides you don’t get elected in CT “towing the conservative line”, when all of its congressional members, one senator, 107 out of 150 state representatives and 24 of the 36 state senators are democrats.