Wasn't Ritter smeared as a pedophile first?
Fairness Doctrine
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Wasn't Ritter smeared as a pedophile first?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Darla... given what we knew then... no, I do not think the fairness doctrine would have had any effect. There was not substantial evidence at the time that would have swayed the pissed off mindset of the American public.... and thus, the press would not have covered it... regardless of whether or not there were a few more liberal talk radio programs....
because when you think about it... if most liberal talk radio programs cannot generate ratings... that kind of implys that not very many people are listening... thus, what real effect would it have had to simply have more liberal talk radio time?
I honestly believe, (and I include myself in this to a good extent) that most Americans simply did not care. We were pissed about 9/11 and we really did not need much convincing to let the bombs fly. Note: I am not saying all Americans were this way, there were certainly opponents. Most of us just weren't in the mood to listen. Personally, as you all probably know, I thought it was going to happen sooner or later. I preferred later (after afghanistan was over) but I did not protest that it was sooner.
So in short, I think 40% of the population were pissed and wanted the war NOW, another 30-40% were pissed and at the time felt it was justified to go into Iraq based on what we knew at the time. The remaining 20-30% were against the war from the start, either because they are simply opposed to war, or because they believed that this particular war was not justified.
because when you think about it... if most liberal talk radio programs cannot generate ratings... that kind of implys that not very many people are listening... thus, what real effect would it have had to simply have more liberal talk radio time?
I honestly believe, (and I include myself in this to a good extent) that most Americans simply did not care. We were pissed about 9/11 and we really did not need much convincing to let the bombs fly. Note: I am not saying all Americans were this way, there were certainly opponents. Most of us just weren't in the mood to listen. Personally, as you all probably know, I thought it was going to happen sooner or later. I preferred later (after afghanistan was over) but I did not protest that it was sooner.
So in short, I think 40% of the population were pissed and wanted the war NOW, another 30-40% were pissed and at the time felt it was justified to go into Iraq based on what we knew at the time. The remaining 20-30% were against the war from the start, either because they are simply opposed to war, or because they believed that this particular war was not justified.
uh, yeah, they wanted him off the air. Somehow, he was involved in a legal matter with a 16 year old or something. But, it never went to trial, nor was he ever convicted, let alone indicted.
That was all a distraction to get him off the air. He was totally shredding war hawks everytime he went on air.
uscitizen
Villified User
darla, the media is a major blind spot with Damo, you will do no good. I have been thru this 198 times I thnk, or was it 199 ?
That was not what that story was about. The documents were falsified, the lady who supplied them said, "Well, he WOULD have said that." when speaking of them.
That story was unchecked dogma from Dan Rather. Regardless of Bush avoiding the draft, that story was all LEAN and gave up totally all indication of fair reporting from See B.S. and called into question every story reported by them in the past, IMO.
See B.S. clearly was not on Bush's side. Pretending that they were is only disinenuous pretense.
You have never been through this with me, old man. I have never held this conversation with you.
I don't know if the fairness doctrine would have changed anything, but I knew what usc was implying when he made that statement, and Cawacko didnt' seem to. Of course, Cawacko believes that the airwaves were filled with san francisco hippies and professors and intellectuals, all debunking the adminstration's case for war. I do think that Cypress is correct, and media consolidation is far more responsible, and, more dangerous.
I don't think that you're right though SF, on why Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. They were frightened into it. You might have forgotten some of it, but i haven't. Two weeks before we went in, right at the same time that bush was hyping the "chemical weapon danger" presented by Iraq, specifically, chemical, we had NYC shut down, because we were on red alert do to secret "information that the adminstration had that we were about to suffer a chemo or bio attack in NY" We got shut down because someone left a freaking sandwhich on the train in Penn station, because of this. I mean, have you forgotten the duct tape and plastic wrap scare?
They were frightened into it, and I still feel that was terrorism. Isn't terrorism the act of terryfying someone into doing what you want them to do? Yes. This adminstration committed acts of terrorism against their own citizens, and the media played along with it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"That the evidence for actual WMD was dubious. "
Yet most major intel services thought Saddam posessed them.
"That is was totally unlikely for Saddam to be allied with al qaeda. "
Personally, I am happy to say that I never fell for that one to begin with. To different ideologies. But given that Saddam did indeed sponsor terrorism.... I really didn't care too much.
"That the claims of uranium from niger were bold faced lies. "
To this day, British intel is sticking with their assessment. I have not as of yet ever seen them detract it. But you are correct in that we did not hear that CIA had disputed that fact (to the best of my recollection)
"That invading and occupying iraq would be much harder and more expansive than Bush's minions let on. "
Had it been done correctly, I do not think it would have been any harder than they expressed. The most critical mistake they made was disbanding the Iraqi army.
"That, while the iraqi people mostly hated saddam, they were not going to be happy about an american invasion and occupation. "
On this, I agree to an extent, but I do believe that would have been tempered had we left the Iraqi army in place and departed after capturing Saddam.
Yet most major intel services thought Saddam posessed them.
"That is was totally unlikely for Saddam to be allied with al qaeda. "
Personally, I am happy to say that I never fell for that one to begin with. To different ideologies. But given that Saddam did indeed sponsor terrorism.... I really didn't care too much.
"That the claims of uranium from niger were bold faced lies. "
To this day, British intel is sticking with their assessment. I have not as of yet ever seen them detract it. But you are correct in that we did not hear that CIA had disputed that fact (to the best of my recollection)
"That invading and occupying iraq would be much harder and more expansive than Bush's minions let on. "
Had it been done correctly, I do not think it would have been any harder than they expressed. The most critical mistake they made was disbanding the Iraqi army.
"That, while the iraqi people mostly hated saddam, they were not going to be happy about an american invasion and occupation. "
On this, I agree to an extent, but I do believe that would have been tempered had we left the Iraqi army in place and departed after capturing Saddam.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Darla... honestly, no, I do not think we were on the whole "scared into the war". As I said, I think a good portion WANTED the war... in the fashion of "lets bomb all the raghead" kind of thinking. I think another portion felt justified based on intel and past experience with Saddam.
I will say that there may have been some that were scared (the ones that ran out to buy the duct tape etc...)... but I just don't believe it was much of the population. Obviously this is simply my opinion based on people I know and interact with and a general assessment with regards to the rest.
I will say that there may have been some that were scared (the ones that ran out to buy the duct tape etc...)... but I just don't believe it was much of the population. Obviously this is simply my opinion based on people I know and interact with and a general assessment with regards to the rest.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Isn't terrorism the act of terryfying someone into doing what you want them to do? Yes. This adminstration committed acts of terrorism against their own citizens, and the media played along with it."
As for this portion... if you hold the politicians by the above standard, then both parties and the vast majority of politicians in DC are guilty of terrorism. Because both parties use scare tactics to get the public to side with them on different issues.
As for this portion... if you hold the politicians by the above standard, then both parties and the vast majority of politicians in DC are guilty of terrorism. Because both parties use scare tactics to get the public to side with them on different issues.
I agree. The "scared" portion was a very small portion of the population. Even those idiots that sold those mail opening boxes where you could open it without catching anthrax didn't sell many.
I also agreed, and will restate, that the fact that many of the stations are owned by a very few people can cause the effect we see moreso than any unFairness Doctrine can fix.
"That the evidence for actual WMD was dubious. "
Yet most major intel services thought Saddam posessed them.
Note the key phrase I used: Dubious. Bush lackey's were claiming they knew "for a fact" and "without a doubt" that Iraq had WMD and were closing in on a nuke.
But, Even the notorious NIE, said that they judged that Iraq had chem and bio weapons, but they had no concrete, on the ground, proof or evidence to verify it. The judgement was loosely and poorly based on the word of some defectors the INC sent to us. And, of course, those of us who were informed, knew that the INC had its own agenda. Which made their "defectors" quesitonable from the start.
Second, colin powell said in Febrary 2001, that iraq had not reconstitued it's WMD.
Third, Cheney's and Bush's alarmist statements about iraqi nukes or nuke programs were debunked by IAEA before the war even started.
Fourth, the Downing street memos, showed that british intelligence were wary and dubious about bush's definitive statements about WMD and the threat from iraq.
Yet most major intel services thought Saddam posessed them.
Note the key phrase I used: Dubious. Bush lackey's were claiming they knew "for a fact" and "without a doubt" that Iraq had WMD and were closing in on a nuke.
But, Even the notorious NIE, said that they judged that Iraq had chem and bio weapons, but they had no concrete, on the ground, proof or evidence to verify it. The judgement was loosely and poorly based on the word of some defectors the INC sent to us. And, of course, those of us who were informed, knew that the INC had its own agenda. Which made their "defectors" quesitonable from the start.
Second, colin powell said in Febrary 2001, that iraq had not reconstitued it's WMD.
Third, Cheney's and Bush's alarmist statements about iraqi nukes or nuke programs were debunked by IAEA before the war even started.
Fourth, the Downing street memos, showed that british intelligence were wary and dubious about bush's definitive statements about WMD and the threat from iraq.
Correction. Just the Media conversation. Yes. Many times. But you have a blind spot when it comes to lean in the media that goes in your direction.
Right, like you dont. Damo, why do you think Cheney planted his stories in The NY Times, and not the Denver Post?
SF: You know when I really started believing that bush was lying about WMD, and simply was using them as an exuse to start a war?
Remember how Bush kept parroting, that Iraq had never declared what had happend to about 5% of their chem/bio weapons that had been built in the 1980s, but were never found, accounted for, or destroyed by the UN experts? The so-called "undeclared" weapons?
One night I was watching Scott Ritter: And he basically said "who gives a shit what happend to those wmd" - even if they ever really existed. They were built in the 1980s, and based on the chemical properties of mustard gas, sarin, etc., they would have degraded into useless goo by now. They'd be inert.
That's when I knew someone way lying and exaggerating the case for war. Because they knew that it was irrelevant to dredge up horror stories about those "unaccounted for" wmd built in the 1980s.
Remember how Bush kept parroting, that Iraq had never declared what had happend to about 5% of their chem/bio weapons that had been built in the 1980s, but were never found, accounted for, or destroyed by the UN experts? The so-called "undeclared" weapons?
One night I was watching Scott Ritter: And he basically said "who gives a shit what happend to those wmd" - even if they ever really existed. They were built in the 1980s, and based on the chemical properties of mustard gas, sarin, etc., they would have degraded into useless goo by now. They'd be inert.
That's when I knew someone way lying and exaggerating the case for war. Because they knew that it was irrelevant to dredge up horror stories about those "unaccounted for" wmd built in the 1980s.
uscitizen
Villified User
same thing, the liberal media and fairness doctrine. need me to search the archives ? Well I did exaggarate on the numbers of times though
Well, I disagree, I think that fear had a lot to do with it, though it is certain that some people did have the mindset of "let's nuke the ragheads". They are the 30% who still support bush today.
I don't know what "scare tactics" anyone, outside of this adminstration, have used against the American people that could possibly compare to "vote for me or you'll die", and "support the war, or you'll die in a chemical attack".
cause, on a nationwide scale, hardly anybody reads the Denver Post....while the NY Times is a true national newspaper, it's viewed as the trendsetter for news.
uscitizen
Villified User
yeah domestic terrorism at it's worst.
it is certain that some people did have the mindset of "let's nuke the ragheads". They are the 30% who still support bush today.
LOL - this is so true. The "nuke 'em" crowd, is the last remaining stronghold of bush support.