Power Line calls it bias.
With Dan Rather and Mary Mapes doing their best to unseat Bush, CNN keeping Carville and Begala on the air, and now ABC News’ Political Director Mark Halperin rallying the troops around Kerry, it is far more than simple bias.
It is power.
We’ve already seen how frightened they are over a bunch of folks sitting around their living rooms dissecting every report MSM
UML Guy has an interesting solution to offer the candidates.
Wretchard has a good post on the election just completed in Australia. John Howard and his coalition (of the bribed and coerced?) have gained strength at the expense of Mark Latham’s Labor Party. In fact, Labor also lost ground to the Greens.
Tim has links to many other commentaries, and over 200 comments at his post.
Good on ya, Australia.
“This president,” say the Democrat ticket, “has squandered the goodwill of those nations who shared our pain on 9/11.”
Because they loved us when we were suffering.
She has a wonderful post of which this is only a small part.
Kevin McCullough of Crosswalk has an article up at WorldNetDaily:
Only one campaign has threatened to sue publishers over material that was written about their candidate and his controversial time spent in uniform. Only one campaign made threats to sue TV stations for airing the commercials of those who sought to broadcast critical messages of that campaign’s candidate. Only one campaign was able to get bookstores to pull negative manuscripts that disputed its candidate’s claims from their inventory.
It’s a long list of “onlys.”
I just had a long discussion with my liberal friend at work (his son is back at Bragg, and doing well) about the reasons we went into Iraq. I know, it’s a tired subject. But it is something he feels strongly enough about to make his support of Kerry very strong. We both know that discussion, not conversion, is the issue. Neither of us will change our mind about this election.
His bounce on this is the WMD reason for going to war, and the feeling that the war was economic. Had sanctions been lifted, Saddam was going to trade oil in Euros rather than dollars. Perhaps there is something to that.
But I raised the issue of Kosovo with him. In a way he hadn’t considered. Like most Democrats, the knee-jerk is “Clinton-basher!” But he knows me better, so he stifled it–but it took some inner strength to do so!
When Clinton decided we needed to intervene in Kosovo, the basis for that intervention was humanitarian. People were being murdered in genocidal fashion, and there were mass graves everywhere. We had no national interest in the doings there except in a humanitarian way. It was a European problem which the Europeans needed to handle. They couldn’t, and wouldn’t. Neither would the UN. So America did. I remember feeling there was a need to do something, but didn’t feel it was our place. When it became clear Europe was going to sit on their collective hands (or thumbs), I thought our involvement was justified. So did most Americans.
There were no mass graves. That doesn’t mean Clinton was wrong to use force.
When Bush decided to intervene in Iraq, the basis was to fight terrorism and prevent the development of WMD there. But something which is not talked about often enough is that the same reasons for invading Kosovo existed in Iraq. On top of that, we did have a national interest in doing so.
There were no WMDs in Iraq. That doesn’t mean Bush was wrong to use force.
There are mass graves in Iraq. That doesn’t mean Bush was wrong to use force.
Kosovo was not in our national interest, yet is was right for us to take action. Iraq was in our national interest, and had the identical situation as Kosovo–and more.
If we were right to go into Kosovo on humanitarian issues alone, were we not also right to go into Iraq for the same reason?
I received a summons for jury duty the other day. Monday, 18 October. Unlike most people, I don’t complain about it. I like jury duty.
I’ve only been selected once in civilian life. I’ve served on courts martial, which is a little different. Usually I didn’t get selected for those, either. Defense attorneys in the Air Force don’t like to see prior-enlisted or maintenance officers on the panel, and I fit both categories. Similarly, civilian attorneys exclude engineers and doctors when possible.
The wait during the selection process gives me some free time to simply read, and the voir dire is always interesting. I think I bring something to a jury, and I like being of value. I pay attention, and enjoy watching each lawyer do his job. I simply try to do mine, and follow the law as directed by the judge. To me, it isn’t boring.
And I am certainly the kind of person I would want to have on a jury if I were involved in a case.
Powered by WordPress