Radio Iraq? ....anyone?
 

Does anyone know if Radio Iraq is on the air? Either Shorwave or internet
streaming?

Has anyone caught it since the invasion?

Thanks!

Radio Iraq? ....anyone?
 

palinor wrote:


Does anyone know if Radio Iraq is on the air? Either Shorwave or internet
streaming?

Radio Baghdad has been off since 2003 I think. There may be some very low power
outlets that have operated in the past from the northern part of the country.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Radio Iraq? ....anyone?
 

Does anyone know if Radio Iraq is on the air? Either Shorwave or
internet
streaming?

Radio Baghdad has been off since 2003 I think. There may be some very low
power
outlets that have operated in the past from the northern part of the
country.


Anything online? Streaming?


10-Q

Radio Iraq? ....anyone?
 

"Rob P" wrote in message
...


Does anyone know if Radio Iraq is on the air? Either Shorwave or
internet
streaming?

Radio Baghdad has been off since 2003 I think. There may be some very low
power
outlets that have operated in the past from the northern part of the
country.


Anything online? Streaming?

Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/dsehw

Radio Iraq? ....anyone?
 

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press
Troops write articles presented as news reports. Some officers object to the
practice.
By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

November 30, 2005

WASHINGTON - As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military
is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American
troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are
translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a
defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents
obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news
accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories
trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout
U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of
events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi
governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S.
has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines
such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began
this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The
Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln
Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's
Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or
advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media
outlets.

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking
place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles,
political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from
decades of dictatorship and corruption.

It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic
journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled
"The Role of Press in a Democratic Society." Standards vary widely at Iraqi
newspapers, many of which are shoestring operations.

Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a
Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited
the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's
great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds
of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief
valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning
democracy, Rumsfeld said.

The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among
some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that
attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's
credibility in other nations and with the American public.

"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every
speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all
the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior
Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi
media.

The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has
moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs -
the dissemination of factual information to the media - and psychological
and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading
information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.

The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and
news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government
as their source and for paying American journalists to promote
administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has
labeled "covert propaganda."

Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was
being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part
of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R.
Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were
critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it.

A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group
spokesman also declined to comment.

One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological
operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force
also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station,
and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public.
Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.

The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under
U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of
insurgent attacks.

U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or
planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several officials
said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the
24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts were carried out with the
knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably "bleeds" into the
Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news outlets.

"There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media.
Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who does
information operations work for the Pentagon.

Daniel Kuehl, an information operations expert at National Defense
University at Ft. McNair in Washington, said that he did not believe that
planting stories in Iraqi media was wrong. But he questioned whether the
practice would help turn the Iraqi public against the insurgency.

"I don't think that there's anything evil or morally wrong with it," he
said. "I just question whether it's effective."

One senior military official who spent this year in Iraq said it was the
strong pro-U.S. message in some news stories in Baghdad that first made him
suspect that the American military was planting articles.

"Stuff would show up in the Iraqi press, and I would ask, 'Where the hell
did that come from?' It was clearly not something that indigenous Iraqi
press would have conceived of on their own," the official said.

Iraqi newspaper editors reacted with a mixture of shock and shrugs when told
they were targets of a U.S. military psychological operation.

Some of the newspapers, such as Al Mutamar, a Baghdad-based daily run by
associates of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, ran the articles as news
stories, indistinguishable from other news reports. Before the war, Chalabi
was the Iraqi exile favored by senior Pentagon officials to lead
post-Hussein Iraq.

Others labeled the stories as "advertising," shaded them in gray boxes or
used a special typeface to distinguish them from standard editorial content.
But none mentioned any connection to the U.S. military.

One Aug. 6 piece, published prominently on Al Mutamar's second page, ran as
a news story with the headline "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism."
Documents obtained by The Times indicated that Al Mutamar was paid about $50
to run the story, though the editor of the paper said he ran such articles
for free.

Nearly $1,500 was paid to the independent Addustour newspaper to run an Aug.
2 article titled "More Money Goes to Iraq's Development," the records
indicated. The newspaper's editor, Bassem Sheikh, said he had "no idea"
where the piece came from but added the note "media services" on top of the
article to distinguish it from other editorial content.

The U.S. military-written articles come in to Al Mutamar, the newspaper run
by Chalabi's associates, via the Internet and are often unsigned, said Luay
Baldawi, the paper's editor in chief.

"We publish anything," he said. "The paper's policy is to publish
everything, especially if it praises causes we believe in. We are
pro-American. Everything that supports America we will publish."

Yet other Al Mutamar employees were much less supportive of their paper's
connection with the U.S. military. "This is not right," said Faleh Hassan,
an editor. "It reflects the tragic condition of journalists in Iraq.
Journalism in Iraq is in very bad shape."

Ultimately, Baldawi acknowledged that he, too, was concerned about the
origin of the articles and pledged to be "more careful about stuff we get by
e-mail."

After he learned of the source of three paid stories that ran in Al Mada in
July, that newspaper's managing editor, Abdul Zahra Zaki, was outraged,
immediately summoning a manager of the advertising department to his office.

"I'm very sad," he said. "We have to investigate."

The Iraqis who delivered the articles also reaped modest profits from the
arrangements, according to sources and records.

Employees at Al Mada said that a low-key man arrived at the newspaper's
offices in downtown Baghdad on July 30 with a large wad of U.S. dollars. He
told the editors that he wanted to publish an article titled "Terrorists
Attack Sunni Volunteers" in the newspaper.

He paid cash and left no calling card, employees said. He did not want a
receipt. The name he gave employees was the same as that of a Lincoln Group
worker in the records obtained by The Times. Although editors at Al Mada
said he paid $900 to place the article, records show that the man told
Lincoln Group that he gave more than $1,200 to the paper.

Al Mada is widely considered the most cerebral and professional of Iraqi
newspapers, publishing investigative reports as well as poetry.

Zaki said that if his cash-strapped paper had known that these stories were
from the U.S. government, he would have "charged much, much more" to publish
them.

According to several sources, the process for placing the stories begins
when soldiers write "storyboards" of events in Iraq, such as a joint
U.S.-Iraqi raid on a suspected insurgent hide-out, or a suicide bomb that
killed Iraqi civilians.

The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more like
press releases than news stories. They often contain anonymous quotes from
U.S. military officials; it is unclear whether the quotes are authentic.

"Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories," said the
senior military official who spent this year in Iraq.

One of the storyboards, dated Nov. 12, describes a U.S.-Iraqi offensive in
the western Iraqi towns of Karabilah and Husaybah.

"Both cities are stopping points for foreign fighters entering Iraq to wage
their unjust war," the storyboard reads.

It continues with a quote from an anonymous U.S. military official: " 'Iraqi
army soldiers and U.S. forces have begun clear-and-hold operations in the
city of Karabilah near Husaybah town, close to the Syrian border,' said a
military official once operations began."

Another storyboard, written on the same date, describes the capture of an
insurgent bomb-maker in Baghdad. "As the people and the [Iraqi security
forces] work together, Iraq will finally drive terrorism out of Iraq for
good," it concludes.

It was unclear whether those two storyboards have made their way into Iraqi
newspapers.

A debate over the Pentagon's handling of information has raged since shortly
after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In 2002, the Pentagon was forced to shut down its Office of Strategic
Influence, which had been created the previous year, after reports surfaced
that it intended to plant false news stories in the international media.

For much of 2005, a Defense Department working group has been trying to
forge a policy about the proper role of information operations in wartime.
Pentagon officials say the group has yet to resolve the often-contentious
debate in the department about the boundaries between military public
affairs and information operations.

Lincoln Group, formerly known as Iraqex, is one of several companies hired
by the U.S. military to carry out "strategic communications" in countries
where large numbers of U.S. troops are based.

Some of Lincoln Group's work in Iraq is very public, such as an animated
public service campaign on Iraqi television that spotlights the Iraqi
civilians killed by roadside bombs planted by insurgents.

Besides its contract with the military in Iraq, Lincoln Group this year won
a major contract with U.S. Special Operations Command, based in Tampa, to
develop a strategic communications campaign in concert with special
operations troops stationed around the globe. The contract is worth up to
$100 million over five years, although U.S. military officials said they
doubted the Pentagon would spend the full amount of the contract.

http://tinyurl.com/9ruh2

Planting phony stories
 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes, the Pentagon is paying an
outfit called the Lincoln Group to plant phony stories in the Iraqi press
about just how well things are going in Iraq.

Actually, maybe that's a sign of progress since that's how we seem to be
running this place too.

In any case, one graf from today's NYT piece is to choice not to reprint ...

"Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for
International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train
journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the
Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears
to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism."
I guess if I had a goatee and a black turtle neck I'd call this the internal
contradictions of Bush bamboozlement. And perhaps I should.

But while the DOD is hiring the Lincoln Group, the Lincoln is subcontracting
the work to BKSH, the PR firm run by Republican uber-operative and
spinmeister Charlie Black.

Actually, if you're looking for phony stories about how well things are
going in Iraq, I guess a Republican talking head like Charlie Black might be
a pretty good better. So this might be an example of shrewd governmnet
contracting.

And if you wonder what Charlie Black knows about bamboozling Iraqis, don't
worry because he must have picked something up when he was working for Ahmed
Chalabi before the war.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php



"yojimbo" wrote in message
...

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press
Troops write articles presented as news reports. Some officers object to
the practice.
By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

November 30, 2005

WASHINGTON - As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S.
military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by
American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in
Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops,
are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help
of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and
documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news
accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories
trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout
U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of
events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi
governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S.
has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines
such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort
began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military.
The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called
Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln
Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance
reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to
Baghdad media outlets.

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is
taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic
principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country
emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.

It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic
journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled
"The Role of Press in a Democratic Society." Standards vary widely at
Iraqi newspapers, many of which are shoestring operations.

Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a
Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited
the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's
great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds
of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief
valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning
democracy, Rumsfeld said.

The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash
among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue
that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's
credibility in other nations and with the American public.

"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every
speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all
the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior
Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the
Iraqi media.

The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has
moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs -
the dissemination of factual information to the media - and psychological
and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading
information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.

The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video
and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal
government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote
administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office
has labeled "covert propaganda."

Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was
being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part
of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R.
Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were
critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it.

A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln
Group spokesman also declined to comment.

One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological
operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task
force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio
station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi
public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.

The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are
under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at
risk of insurgent attacks.

U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations
or planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several
officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the
Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts were carried
out with the knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably
"bleeds" into the Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news
outlets.

"There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media.
Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who
does information operations work for the Pentagon.

Daniel Kuehl, an information operations expert at National Defense
University at Ft. McNair in Washington, said that he did not believe that
planting stories in Iraqi media was wrong. But he questioned whether the
practice would help turn the Iraqi public against the insurgency.

"I don't think that there's anything evil or morally wrong with it," he
said. "I just question whether it's effective."

One senior military official who spent this year in Iraq said it was the
strong pro-U.S. message in some news stories in Baghdad that first made
him suspect that the American military was planting articles.

"Stuff would show up in the Iraqi press, and I would ask, 'Where the hell
did that come from?' It was clearly not something that indigenous Iraqi
press would have conceived of on their own," the official said.

Iraqi newspaper editors reacted with a mixture of shock and shrugs when
told they were targets of a U.S. military psychological operation.

Some of the newspapers, such as Al Mutamar, a Baghdad-based daily run by
associates of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, ran the articles as
news stories, indistinguishable from other news reports. Before the war,
Chalabi was the Iraqi exile favored by senior Pentagon officials to lead
post-Hussein Iraq.

Others labeled the stories as "advertising," shaded them in gray boxes or
used a special typeface to distinguish them from standard editorial
content. But none mentioned any connection to the U.S. military.

One Aug. 6 piece, published prominently on Al Mutamar's second page, ran
as a news story with the headline "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite
Terrorism." Documents obtained by The Times indicated that Al Mutamar was
paid about $50 to run the story, though the editor of the paper said he
ran such articles for free.

Nearly $1,500 was paid to the independent Addustour newspaper to run an
Aug. 2 article titled "More Money Goes to Iraq's Development," the records
indicated. The newspaper's editor, Bassem Sheikh, said he had "no idea"
where the piece came from but added the note "media services" on top of
the article to distinguish it from other editorial content.

The U.S. military-written articles come in to Al Mutamar, the newspaper
run by Chalabi's associates, via the Internet and are often unsigned, said
Luay Baldawi, the paper's editor in chief.

"We publish anything," he said. "The paper's policy is to publish
everything, especially if it praises causes we believe in. We are
pro-American. Everything that supports America we will publish."

Yet other Al Mutamar employees were much less supportive of their paper's
connection with the U.S. military. "This is not right," said Faleh Hassan,
an editor. "It reflects the tragic condition of journalists in Iraq.
Journalism in Iraq is in very bad shape."

Ultimately, Baldawi acknowledged that he, too, was concerned about the
origin of the articles and pledged to be "more careful about stuff we get
by e-mail."

After he learned of the source of three paid stories that ran in Al Mada
in July, that newspaper's managing editor, Abdul Zahra Zaki, was outraged,
immediately summoning a manager of the advertising department to his
office.

"I'm very sad," he said. "We have to investigate."

The Iraqis who delivered the articles also reaped modest profits from the
arrangements, according to sources and records.

Employees at Al Mada said that a low-key man arrived at the newspaper's
offices in downtown Baghdad on July 30 with a large wad of U.S. dollars.
He told the editors that he wanted to publish an article titled
"Terrorists Attack Sunni Volunteers" in the newspaper.

He paid cash and left no calling card, employees said. He did not want a
receipt. The name he gave employees was the same as that of a Lincoln
Group worker in the records obtained by The Times. Although editors at Al
Mada said he paid $900 to place the article, records show that the man
told Lincoln Group that he gave more than $1,200 to the paper.

Al Mada is widely considered the most cerebral and professional of Iraqi
newspapers, publishing investigative reports as well as poetry.

Zaki said that if his cash-strapped paper had known that these stories
were from the U.S. government, he would have "charged much, much more" to
publish them.

According to several sources, the process for placing the stories begins
when soldiers write "storyboards" of events in Iraq, such as a joint
U.S.-Iraqi raid on a suspected insurgent hide-out, or a suicide bomb that
killed Iraqi civilians.

The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more
like press releases than news stories. They often contain anonymous quotes
from U.S. military officials; it is unclear whether the quotes are
authentic.

"Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories," said the
senior military official who spent this year in Iraq.

One of the storyboards, dated Nov. 12, describes a U.S.-Iraqi offensive in
the western Iraqi towns of Karabilah and Husaybah.

"Both cities are stopping points for foreign fighters entering Iraq to
wage their unjust war," the storyboard reads.

It continues with a quote from an anonymous U.S. military official: "
'Iraqi army soldiers and U.S. forces have begun clear-and-hold operations
in the city of Karabilah near Husaybah town, close to the Syrian border,'
said a military official once operations began."

Another storyboard, written on the same date, describes the capture of an
insurgent bomb-maker in Baghdad. "As the people and the [Iraqi security
forces] work together, Iraq will finally drive terrorism out of Iraq for
good," it concludes.

It was unclear whether those two storyboards have made their way into
Iraqi newspapers.

A debate over the Pentagon's handling of information has raged since
shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In 2002, the Pentagon was forced to shut down its Office of Strategic
Influence, which had been created the previous year, after reports
surfaced that it intended to plant false news stories in the international
media.

For much of 2005, a Defense Department working group has been trying to
forge a policy about the proper role of information operations in wartime.
Pentagon officials say the group has yet to resolve the often-contentious
debate in the department about the boundaries between military public
affairs and information operations.

Lincoln Group, formerly known as Iraqex, is one of several companies hired
by the U.S. military to carry out "strategic communications" in countries
where large numbers of U.S. troops are based.

Some of Lincoln Group's work in Iraq is very public, such as an animated
public service campaign on Iraqi television that spotlights the Iraqi
civilians killed by roadside bombs planted by insurgents.

Besides its contract with the military in Iraq, Lincoln Group this year
won a major contract with U.S. Special Operations Command, based in Tampa,
to develop a strategic communications campaign in concert with special
operations troops stationed around the globe. The contract is worth up to
$100 million over five years, although U.S. military officials said they
doubted the Pentagon would spend the full amount of the contract.

http://tinyurl.com/9ruh2

Planting phony stories
 

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

Planting phony stories
 

MnMikew wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

They're both the DNCTimes. East and West Coast editions.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Planting phony stories
 

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

True enough! Both editorialized in favor of war. And no-one is more
responsible for giving voice to Bush & Cheney's lies than the front page of
the New York Times, so, yeah, they are indeed very partisan. Which makes
their turnabout all the more remarkable. Thanks for putting into context and
reminding us that we should always be skeptical of anything that comes out
of the White House and their stenographic press corps.

Planting phony stories
 

uhhh I ees,let me chek my reegogarance to see where I am at.I felllll
into a burning ring of firrrre and the flames kept gettin higher and
higher,,,, that ring of fire,,,,, that ring of firrreee,,,,,,,,
http://www.chivalry.com/cantaria/lyr...glan-road.html
cuhulin

Planting phony stories
 

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
True enough! Both editorialized in favor of war. And no-one is more
responsible for giving voice to Bush & Cheney's lies than the front page
of
the New York Times, so, yeah, they are indeed very partisan.

BWHAHAHA, you can't be serious. The NYT a mouthpiece for Bush, that's just
plain stupid. Show me ONE pro-war editorial.

Planting phony stories
 

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:28:33 -0500, dxAce
wrote:



MnMikew wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

They're both the DNCTimes. East and West Coast editions.

dxAce
Michigan
USA
I don't know about the L. A. Times, but the New York Times (no
relation) has been caught aiding the Administration's propaganda
campaign leading up to the fake Iraq war. The criminal White House
would steer Judith Miller to Curveball, Miller would publish
Curveball's bull**** WMD fantasies, then Bunnypants would use the NY
Times stories as proof of Saddam's giant threat.

Planting phony stories
 

David wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:28:33 -0500, dxAce
wrote:



MnMikew wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

They're both the DNCTimes. East and West Coast editions.

dxAce
Michigan
USA
I don't know about the L. A. Times, but the New York Times (no
relation) has been caught aiding the Administration's propaganda
campaign leading up to the fake Iraq war. The criminal White House
would steer Judith Miller to Curveball, Miller would publish
Curveball's bull**** WMD fantasies, then Bunnypants would use the NY
Times stories as proof of Saddam's giant threat.

OK, Dependspants.

LMAO at the mentally ill Rickets yet again.

You go!, 'tard boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Planting phony stories
 

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
True enough! Both editorialized in favor of war. And no-one is more
responsible for giving voice to Bush & Cheney's lies than the front page
of
the New York Times, so, yeah, they are indeed very partisan.

BWHAHAHA, you can't be serious. The NYT a mouthpiece for Bush, that's just
plain stupid. Show me ONE pro-war editorial.

You can look at their editorials from February to April 2003. It's all
there. As far as their front-page coverage, it's remarkable -- and somehwat
peculiar, don't you think? -- that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney would spend
every Sunday morning talk show trumpeting the librul New York Times in-depth
weapons reporting to push their drive to war. It's all on record.

Planting phony stories
 

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

MnMikew wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

They're both the DNCTimes. East and West Coast editions.

I don't read the Times from either coast due to their liberal bias. I
don't read or support their web sites either.

All newspapers are generally on the decline because of the poor
reporting and bias exhibited in the daily print. The newspapers used to
have a lock on reporting the news so the general public was ignorant of
this fact but not anymore. AM broadcast talk radio, AM radio news, the
Internet and satellite have become alternate sources of news reporting
and commentary.

In the past unless you had a short-wave radio you did not really
understand what was going on out in the world. All you had was the
newspapers and their slant. The three networked TV and radio news was
mostly in lock step with the newspapers and you would get the same
story from them. Short-wave was the only way you could hear what other
countries had to say about events or about the USA "directly" without
the newspapers filtering what they had to say but only the short-wave
listening crowd had that ability.

Not only did I listen to Russia, Red China and other communist
countries SW broadcasts I also used to read their news network over
short-wave with a Universal RTTY decoder. Listening to their networked
news their main object was to nuke if necessary then over run the USA,
Israel, Vietnam, South Korea and basically just grind us into the dust.
The USA was evil and deserved whatever it had coming to it. The total
defeat and occupation of the USA was was the goal all the communists
countries worked toward and that is still their objective today. You
did not hear ANY of this strident talk reported in the main stream
media until recently.

Today people have more of these alternate sources to compare to the
newsprint and are rejecting the poor reporting and bias in reporting
the news and the general public has also rejected to greater degree the
biased commentary about the news. Since a greater percentage of the
population have other sources to compare the print reporters "take" on
the news than just short-wave radio more and more people are becoming
aware of the media bias and are rejecting that bias.

The East and West coast Times have not learned their lesson that they
no longer have a lock on the news reporting and will continue to
decline.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Planting phony stories
 

"yojimbo" wrote in message
...

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
True enough! Both editorialized in favor of war. And no-one is more
responsible for giving voice to Bush & Cheney's lies than the front
page
of
the New York Times, so, yeah, they are indeed very partisan.

BWHAHAHA, you can't be serious. The NYT a mouthpiece for Bush, that's
just
plain stupid. Show me ONE pro-war editorial.

You can look at their editorials from February to April 2003. It's all
there. As far as their front-page coverage, it's remarkable -- and
somehwat
peculiar, don't you think? -- that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney would spend
every Sunday morning talk show trumpeting the librul New York Times
in-depth
weapons reporting to push their drive to war. It's all on record.


Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman, who just returned from Iraq, defended
U.S. efforts there in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal and a subsequent news
conference on Capitol Hill, saying the military has "a good plan" for
victory in Iraq, that progress is "visible and practical" and warning that
such progress could be turned back by a premature withdrawal.
But the major media that played up Democratic Rep. John Murtha's call for
withdrawing U.S. troops largely ignored Lieberman's remarks. Neither ABC nor
CBS mentioned the senator in their nightly newscasts while NBC aired a short
sound byte. And The Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today ran not a
word of Lieberman's praise for U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Planting phony stories
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Today people have more of these alternate sources to compare to the
newsprint and are rejecting the poor reporting and bias in reporting
the news and the general public has also rejected to greater degree the
biased commentary about the news.

All good points. But of course, none of that stopped Dick Cheney from using
the librul NYT every Sunday to push his war while at the same time sweeping
CIA doubts under the rug. Doesn't anybody else think it odd that a
Republican White House would prioritize and herald intelligence from
anonymous sources printed in the librul New York Times over it's own CIA has
a problem? Or is it just another awesome punchline for us to laugh our heads
off?

Planting phony stories
 

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman, who just returned from Iraq, defended
U.S. efforts there in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal and a subsequent news
conference on Capitol Hill, saying the military has "a good plan" for
victory in Iraq, that progress is "visible and practical" and warning that
such progress could be turned back by a premature withdrawal.
But the major media that played up Democratic Rep. John Murtha's call for
withdrawing U.S. troops largely ignored Lieberman's remarks. Neither ABC
nor
CBS mentioned the senator in their nightly newscasts while NBC aired a
short
sound byte. And The Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today ran not
a
word of Lieberman's praise for U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Oh, so now we want to endorse the radical views of Joe LOSERman???

Har-har, LMAO!!!

Planting phony stories
 

In article ,
"MnMikew" wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
...

Snip BS

Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman, who just returned from Iraq,
defended U.S. efforts there in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal and a
subsequent news conference on Capitol Hill, saying the military has
"a good plan" for victory in Iraq, that progress is "visible and
practical" and warning that such progress could be turned back by a
premature withdrawal. But the major media that played up Democratic
Rep. John Murtha's call for withdrawing U.S. troops largely ignored
Lieberman's remarks. Neither ABC nor CBS mentioned the senator in
their nightly newscasts while NBC aired a short sound byte. And The
Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today ran not a word of
Lieberman's praise for U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Joe Lieberman appears to be one of a handful of elected Democrats that
will stick to principle over party. He is one of the few Democrat
Senators I trust to speak the truth or do the right thing.

I trust ABC, NBC or CBS News will spin the story just like the East or
West coast Times. These organizations are all of the same liberal ilk,
which is why they are on the decline.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Planting phony stories
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Joe Lieberman appears to be one of a handful of elected Democrats that
will stick to principle over party.

....And the facts!!

Time magazine Baghdad Bureau Chief Michael Ware, just the other day:

"I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other
day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is
so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's
spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of
this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and
yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

He is one of the few Democrat
Senators I trust to speak the truth or do the right thing.

Yeah, he speaks the Bush truth (ie. "There can be no doubt") and the Bush
right thing (ie. "We must not be nation-builders," Mr. Bush told LOSERman's
running-mate in the 2000 election debates).

I trust ABC, NBC or CBS News

There ya go again, putting your trust in the librul media. How many times
can they trot out Mr. Bush's war lies and excuses before exercising some
skepticism??


will spin the story just like the East or
West coast Times. These organizations are all of the same liberal ilk,
which is why they are on the decline.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Planting phony stories
 

Enchanted Way in Dublin,Ireland actually does exist.I was in
Dingle,Ireland about sixty three years ago (funeral thingy) I saw a
trail cutting through the tall green grass,, it was a Leprechaun.I
wanted to run after it.
cuhulin

Planting phony stories
 

yojimbo wrote:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes, the Pentagon is paying an
outfit called the Lincoln Group to plant phony stories in the Iraqi press
about just how well things are going in Iraq.

Even the New York Liberal Times didn't say "phony stories". Where did
you find this raving lunatic? The Daily Worker? Was he walking the
street, yelling, "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose
but your chains!"?

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Planting phony stories
 

David wrote:
I don't know about the L. A. Times, but the New York Times (no
relation) has been caught aiding the Administration's propaganda
campaign leading up to the fake Iraq war.

Cite.

The criminal White House

Got rid of them in 2000, kept them out in 2004. Thanks for a pleasant
memory.

would steer Judith Miller to Curveball, Miller would publish
Curveball's bull**** WMD fantasies, then Bunnypants would use the NY
Times stories as proof of Saddam's giant threat.

You have a fertile and overactive imagination.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Planting phony stories
 

Telamon wrote:
Joe Lieberman appears to be one of a handful of elected Democrats that
will stick to principle over party. He is one of the few Democrat
Senators I trust to speak the truth or do the right thing.

There was a period when it looked like Joe might have had a shot at the
title match, and I have to say that I could well have voted for him
under the right circumstances.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Planting phony stories
 

NY Slimes,LA Slimes,,, they are all just alike.No Wonder the paper
editions of the organs of U.S.Ministry of Propaganda so-called
"newspapers" are failing so much nowdays.I Say,F..K em all Straight to
HELL!!!!
cuhulin

Planting phony stories
 

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Telamon wrote:
Joe Lieberman appears to be one of a handful of elected Democrats that
will stick to principle over party. He is one of the few Democrat
Senators I trust to speak the truth or do the right thing.

There was a period when it looked like Joe might have had a shot at the
title match, and I have to say that I could well have voted for him
under the right circumstances.

Right circumstances...you mean, if he had've come right out and said:]

Vote For Me, I'm A Neo-Con Too, I'll Use Your Tax Dollars and Our National
Defense to Protect Israel.

Planting phony stories
 

wrote in message
...
NY Slimes,LA Slimes,,, they are all just alike.No Wonder the paper
editions of the organs of U.S.Ministry of Propaganda so-called
"newspapers" are failing so much nowdays.I Say,F..K em all Straight to
HELL!!!!

I gotta say it's a cold day in hell -- superpatriots exalt the New York
Times and Joe LOSERman.

Planting phony stories
 

yojimbo wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
There was a period when it looked like Joe might have had a shot at the
title match, and I have to say that I could well have voted for him
under the right circumstances.

Right circumstances...you mean, if he had've come right out and said:]

Vote For Me, I'm A Neo-Con Too, I'll Use Your Tax Dollars and Our National
Defense to Protect Israel.

Nope. If he could have kept clear of the extreme left wing's agenda and
run on a nice centrist platform, I'd have had to think long and hard
about voting for him.

I don't like Israel. They kill our ships and our seamen without provocation.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Planting phony stories
 

yojimbo wrote:
I gotta say it's a cold day in hell -- superpatriots exalt the New York
Times and Joe LOSERman.

If you'd stop looking through a fog of liberalism, you'd notice a lot of
that.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Planting phony stories
 

DX Ace,

Both the NYT and LAT buildings should be painted Red
{or at least Pink} - imho ~ RHF

(OT) : YoJimBo - Once Again 'you' Are Planting Phony {Off-Topic} Stories as a Democrat Party of the USA Sock-Puppet !
 

On 3 Dec 2005 00:42:05 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:

(OT) : YoJimBo - Once Again 'you' Are Planting Phony {Off-Topic}
Stories as a Democrat Party of the USA Sock-Puppet !

Gee - Another Democrat Party of the USA Sock-Puppet Posting
an Off-Topic Political Message to a Shortwave Radio NewGroup.

Wow - I Am All Excited - Howard Dean's "Scream It To The People"
Daily Talking Points from the DNC {Democrat National Communtern}

Howdy - At Least Put and (OT) : at the start of the Subject Line.

Yet another newt nanny ****. Nothing here.

(OT) : YoJimBo - Once Again 'you' Are Planting Phony {Off-Topic} Stories as a Democrat Party of the USA Sock-Puppet !
 

"K" - Speaking of "Nothing Here" . . .
'you' been looking in a Mirror again !

"K" - If 'you' only had a Brain . . .
Then 'you' would be Legally Insane :o) ~ RHF

Planting phony stories
 

From: "RHF"
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 2 Dec 2005 23:11:19 -0800
Subject: Planting phony stories

DX Ace,

Both the NYT and LAT buildings should be painted Red
{or at least Pink} - imho ~ RHF
.
Or maybe red white & blue would be more appropriate, since our founding
fathers were so adamant about keeping a free press in our new democracy that
they incorporated its protection in the very First Amendment.

("No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no
one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack
and defence. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth
whether in religion, law or politics. I think it as honorable to the
government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors, as it would
be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792.)

The irony here is that you would criticize those newspapers for telling the
truth. In this case the truth is that the Bush administration, while
bragging about the "free and independent" news sources springing up in Iraq,
seeks to control what those sources report. A free press has always been
anathema to the Bush administration because of all the administration's
devious pursuits and corrupt practices that don't hold up well to public
scrutiny.

This administration is looking more and more like the corrupt Nixon/Agnew
one, whose primary enemy was not the foreign powers who would seek to
destroy our democracy, but rather the media who would seek to protect it.

Greg

Planting phony stories
 

Greg wrote:
Or maybe red white & blue would be more appropriate, since our founding
fathers were so adamant about keeping a free press in our new democracy that
they incorporated its protection in the very First Amendment.

Let's treat it the same as we treat that other thing protected even
before free press in the First Amendment (religion). You can have a
free press, but your press people can't do their thing on public
property or in schools, and they can't offer the paper for sale in
public, it has to be sought out quietly by those who want it.

The irony here is that you would criticize those newspapers for telling the
truth.

No, when the NYT or LAT tells the truth, all you'll see out of us is
amazed silence. We criticize them for telling lies and for passing
opinion as fact.

In this case the truth is that the Bush administration, while
bragging about the "free and independent" news sources springing up in Iraq,
seeks to control what those sources report.

Control? No. Persuade them to print some good stuff about us? Sure, in
the ages-old way of persuasion in the middle east; we crease their
palms with silver.

A free press has always been
anathema to the Bush administration because of all the administration's
devious pursuits and corrupt practices that don't hold up well to public
scrutiny.

The truly free press, which has originated with the Internet and other
available forms of mass communication not controlled by traditional
media, has been the best thing for Bush and the conservative movement
in general since the founding fathers created the Constitution. It's
really anathema to liberal lies. And that ****es you off, doesn't it?

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Planting phony stories
 

www.devilfinder.com Room C Titles

Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction.
cuhulin

Planting phony stories
 

Cuhulin - and often Fiction Reads, is Received
and Sells Better . . . than "The Truth" !

Fact or Fiction can be a matter of Opinion based on
Peoples Feelings, Fears, Biases, Desires and Needs.

reality - really has nothing to do with it - often ~ RHF

(OT) : YoJimBo - Once Again 'you' Are Planting Phony {Off-Topic} Stories as a Democrat Party of the USA Sock-Puppet !
 

On 3 Dec 2005 22:30:38 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:

"K" - Speaking of "Nothing Here" . . .
'you' been looking in a Mirror again !

"K" - If 'you' only had a Brain . . .
Then 'you' would be Legally Insane :o) ~ RHF

Do you alternate hands while thumping your keyboard and
thumping your pud?

(OT) : GREG - FWIW - Nixon and Agnew are both Dead - JUSTLIKE 'your' LIBERAL "HATE NIXON" 1960s THINKING ! - Once Again 'you' ProveYou Are A Sock-Puppet For The Democrat Party of the USA !
 

From: "RHF"
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 4 Dec 2005 11:52:22 -0800
Subject: (OT) : GREG - FWIW - Nixon and Agnew are both Dead - JUST LIKE 'your'
LIBERAL "HATE NIXON" 1960s THINKING ! - Once Again 'you' Prove You Are A
Sock-Puppet For The Democrat Party of the USA !

I wonder if you talk to people like that in person. I bet not.

Greg - When I have to Pay for the News Paper
- It is NOT a Free Press [.]

You want free newspapers? You socialist!

The Systematic 'Liberal' Slanting of the News is NOT "The Truth" [.]

Let me get this strait: The NY Times and the LA Times were lying about the
US Army writing fluff stories and paying a contractor to place them in Iraqi
newspapers? You'd better get on the phone to the US Army - even they
believe it's true, and they are defending it.

Greg Says (Writes) :
"This administration is looking more and more like the corrupt
Nixon/Agnew one, whose primary enemy was not the foreign
powers who would seek to destroy our democracy, but rather
the media who would seek to protect it. "

IIRC - The Clinton Administration has ended and Bill and Hillary are
no longer holding Court : So just what are you talking about Greg ?
Greg - Remember thel Eight Years of Continued Clinton
Administration Scandals and His Impeachment ? - It's History !
[ I guess I am Stuck in the 1990s :]

FWIW - Nixon and Agnew are both Dead -
JUST LIKE 'your' LIBERAL "HATE NIXON" 1960s THINKING !

You are right about Nixon & Agnew being dead. I'm glad you are up on your
current events. And I don't hate Nixon, but I do hate that he was corrupt.

And Bill and Hillary are both very much alive; plus Hillary . . .
will be Running for the Presidency in 2008 - Think About That !

Okay, there, done.

greg - the truth will set you free - be free ~ RHF
.
I think you are afraid of freedom for others, since you can't control what
people think. You can only insult the ones who don't agree with your
narrow-minded view of the world.

Greg

(OT) : GREG - FWIW - Nixon and Agnew are both Dead - JUST LIKE 'your' LIBERAL "HATE NIXON" 1960s THINKING ! - Once Again 'you' Prove You Are A Sock-Puppet For The Democrat Party of the USA !
 

Greg - Today's Free and Independent Press
[ Unfiltered News and Information ]
is on the Internet and Today's Really True
{Natural} Journalists are Web-Bloggers.

Greg - Yes I Do in-fact Talk To People
Face-to-Face That (This) Way ~ RHF

Planting phony stories
 

Greg wrote:
From: clifto
Greg wrote:
From: clifto
Greg wrote:
Or maybe red white & blue would be more appropriate, since our founding
fathers were so adamant about keeping a free press in our new democracy
that
they incorporated its protection in the very First Amendment.

Let's treat it the same as we treat that other thing protected even
before free press in the First Amendment (religion). You can have a
free press, but your press people can't do their thing on public
property or in schools, and they can't offer the paper for sale in
public, it has to be sought out quietly by those who want it.

School is not the place to promote conformity to the majority religion.

Or to the majority press.

Neither are government offices.

Same here. If they can't accommodate ALL the press, they shouldn't be
accommodating ANY of the press.

And churches, religious groups can offer
their services for sale just like everyone else.

Hell, no. You can buy a newspaper in the Federal Building; you can't
practice religion there. They should restrict the press the same way
they restrict that other thing that was protected first by the First
Amendment.

Well you can't practice skeet shooting there either. But selling newspapers
isn't the same as holding a religious service. If you want to hold a
religious service, why don't you do it in a church?

Most do.

We're talking about things like an occasional prayer, or a bible study,
things that aren't all-out religious service. And to parallel it,
selling newspapers, something that's not an all-out free-speech event
with real speeches. If you can't do the one in public, you shouldn't
be able to do the other in public either. If you should be able to do
one but not the other, then it should be the one mentioned first in
the First Amendment.

And you can pray anywhere
you want.

Bullswozzle. You can't pray in school. No, not even all by yourself
where people can't see you. And you'd better not pray on public property
where any ACLU people can see you.

Paranoia.

I've documented it here in this newsgroup and I know you've seen it.

The irony here is that you would criticize those newspapers for telling the
truth.

No, when the NYT or LAT tells the truth, all you'll see out of us is
amazed silence.

Amazed silence? That would be sweet! But the subject of this thread was
the placing of paid propaganda in so-called "independent newspapers" in
Iraq. Are you saying that isn't true?

I've yet to see evidence that anything untrue was in those articles.
Until then, it's no worse than the liberal American press spreading
the propaganda of the Democratic Party.

No one said the articles were untrue. The lie is in the fact that the
material is partisan propaganda (and propaganda can be true), not
independent reporting.

Show me.

Oh, wait, you can't. No one here knows what articles were "bought".
No one has seen one. You're judging them sight unseen.

I see. You believe they MUST be false because... DOWN DOWN BUSH! DOWN
DOWN BUSH! DOWN DOWN BUSH!

In this case the truth is that the Bush administration, while
bragging about the "free and independent" news sources springing up in
Iraq,
seeks to control what those sources report.

Control? No. Persuade them to print some good stuff about us? Sure, in
the ages-old way of persuasion in the middle east; we crease their
palms with silver.

Agreed. But dishonest, nontheless, when it's done covertly. It gives the
impression that the story was generated by independent observers.

What "covertly"? No one asked and there was no reason to tell them.
Have you criticized the toilet facilities over there? Have you even
asked what they're like? So why are you criticizing our government
doing business their way when you don't criticize our citizens going
there and doing toilet duty their way? Facts is facts; you can go back
to movies of the 1940's and see characterizations of arab people
demanding to have their palms creased with silver to do a favor,
there's certainly nothing new about it in the 21st century.

Covertly in that the Iraqi people didn't know their newspapers were a tool
of the US Army propaganda machine, and neither did the American people, and,
if they are telling the truth, neither did the Pentagon or the White House.

The people over there know that the press will print anything that comes
with a few dinars under the table, just as nearly anyone in nearly any
occupation over there will do special work for a little grease.

And you still haven't proven there's anything untrue about the material.

A free press has always been
anathema to the Bush administration because of all the administration's
devious pursuits and corrupt practices that don't hold up well to public
scrutiny.

The truly free press, which has originated with the Internet and other
available forms of mass communication not controlled by traditional
media, has been the best thing for Bush and the conservative movement
in general since the founding fathers created the Constitution. It's
really anathema to liberal lies. And that ****es you off, doesn't it?

No, I enjoy the give and take available to all of us on the Internet. But
there is a lot of crap, and you really have to examine what is offered as
factual. And I don't see how Bush is being helped by the Internet. Sure,
there are a lot of conservatives venting their rage against "Liberal
Neo-Communists", but so what?

News gets around. We now get details on stuff we'd never have had
any idea had ever happened, like Gore causing an international incident
by telling racist jokes in Indonesia, or getting lost ten feet into the
woods while taking a leak, or someone forging evidence against Bush
and someone else going ahead with it even knowing it was forged. Before
conservatives developed means of communication that didn't depend on
the traditional media, we were stuck with whatever the liberal press
wanted us spoon-fed.

Yes, it's fun to read the gossip. And the Bush papers business is an
Internet coup for sure. Although, it's doubtful those documents would have
held up under the inevitable scrutiny, Internet or no.

No one person outed those documents. It was several people expressing
doubts and talking them through that started the whole research project.
If there wasn't that element of interactive communication, as was the
case ten years ago before enough people knew about the 'net, the
documents would probably be the linchpin of a massive liberal-media
hate Bush campaign.

If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Please do.

It could happen. Hopefully the Repubs won't be so foolish.

Okay, I'll bite, what's your case with McCain?

He's a liberal Democrat who somehow managed to get onto a Republican
ticket. He's already betrayed his party publicly by bypassing the
party's workings and co-founding this "gang of 14".

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.