Flags at half staff issues

I don't completely buy into the article, but I agree the "Liberal" press along with that sham of a news organization FOX pretty much gave the administration anything they wanted leading up to the "Liberation of Iraq", the couple of years post "Liberation" and should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Don't hate FOX because you don't understand it. I bet your nose is stuck in the Clinton News Network.

 

Don't worry I fully understand FAUX News and I don't watch CNN either.

 

haha. i <3 FAUX News. Fairly unbalanced.

 

Ahh I see. Liberals don't watch the news??

 

All you get on Faux news is the Republican talking points. Two thirds of their viewers do not know who Karl Rove is.

 

You do live in a rather simple world don't you? Only two news sources out there? Only black and white, please tell me you don't fit the complete stereotype of a conservative (I mean modern conservative not a traditional conservative).

 

Hught...are you completely uncapable of responding to a post with something relevant TO THAT POST and without turning it into Moonbat talking points 1-2-3?

What exactly about the article do you not completely buy into?

 

Have you failed to notice that Fox News offers the opportunity for "the other side" to respond and speak regarding an issue most of the time?

How many times do you see the split screen with one person with the conservative view point and one person with the liberal view point? The fact is that you see that quite often.

And during that time, the liberal is allowed to say anything they want on the issue.

I'd say that's pretty darned balanced. Can you name another news facility that does that? Much less does that regularly?

 

That the administration is blameless in this little escapade. There has been just too much smoke around these issues for you to be able to successfully use the moonbat language and rolly eyes.

 

Other than the complete use of assumption and ignorance of what was stated in the original article?

Note the plural not singular.

No reference to number of sources.

Note the listing of a singluar source for the DIRECT quote and that no source indicated life threatening wounds.

Again the plural in sources of information and data in general. The indication of the level of uncertainty seems to be clear, as well.

Note the lack of reference to the plural, which seems to only target the official providing the direct quote even though the article indicates plural sources.

It is a common situation in many articles on many subjects. The source for the information is known by the reporter but not listed in the article.

Possiblities and a bad case if innuendo.

A huge assumption based on the prior belief or wish to believe.

They did indicate the volitile nature of the information as they knew it, but the ultimate source of all of the information was the military.

Again the reference to the other sourceS is ignored in the attempt to supprt the preconceived notion.

Not all of the sources? The sources would have to agree or the reporters would retain no credibility in their field with any other sources.

How is that for specific issues?

 

Let me get this straight. First you say you "...wouldn't touch FAUX with a stick", which seems to mean you don't watch Fox News....

..yet you then turn right around next and say you "...noticed that FAUX does not show anything bad about this administration."

So you are just parroting liberal talking points when you complain about what they do and don't "show", right? Or are we to believe you are psychic? :roll:

Well, lets see what really occured:

So we have a military officer telling someone from rank and file that he is not to discuss the specifics of the incident with the brother of a fallen soldier immediately following the incident.

We then find out WHY he was told that:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2334

I think that makes perfect sense.

As for Jessica Lynch...give me a break. In her testimony she says:

How quaint. Did she feel this way when she authorized her biography: I Am a Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story ?

So she authorizes this information in her authorized "biography" and then testifies about "elaborate" lies being told by others? Well Ms. Lynch better take a piece of the lying pie herself, because she was has no room to speak. I'm sure she enjoyed the money from the book and all the media attention, though.

No kidding...but not to that which you think they need to open their eyes to.

 

Well, do you have an substantiation that the administration started those stories rather than the administration? Any quotes by any administration officials talking that way about the incident?

Hught...give me something concrete to substantiate your point. Otherwise, your point is moot.

 

Assumption? Assumption of what?...that the media spun the "hero" story and not the military or the administration? Let's take a look at what this "assuming" article puts forth:

The article states clearly that it was WAPO who first ran the media-spun version of what happened. The article also provided proof that another news outlet also confirmed that WAPO ran it first. The article then provides proof that WAPO single-sourced the information in their article from an "official" source they couldn't even identify.

So...where's the assumption, Wayne?

And isn't that convenient? That way, liberal rags can report anything they want using "official" un-named sources. And if it comes back to bite them in the ***, they can just blame it on whatever officials they want to blame it on.

And we know that the ultimate source of this information is the military how?

Don't be naive. Why would they have to agree? They aren't even identified? LOL! Get real.

In today's modern journalism, where "un-named official" sources are the norm used by lazy and biased journalist, and where journalists of the stature that used to be held by Dan Rather don't hesitate to fake documents in order to get the story and bash those who don't agree with their political viewpoint...

...there IS not credibility in the field.

 

i have not read the entire thread so...


i also did not think it was right to fly the flag at half staff for VT. yes it was a tragic thing that happened.

 

I think that you are confused at the very least on this matter. The medical records do not indicate sexual assault? The medical examination is incapable of proving such an assault took place? What part of that excerpt is a lie, in your opinion?

 

If you call what O'Reilly does, giving the other side a chance to state their view, I'm afraid you don't see it quite the same way I do. He interrupts his guests, and if they try to complete a sentence he shouts over them. He makes up statistics and then says, "Those are the numbers. You can't argue with it." He does exactly what he accused Bill Moyers of just the other day, when he went ballistic over an 8-second clip from his show in Moyers 90 minute program. Every time I watch Faux news, I end up yelling at the TV. Of course, it's not just Faux - I usually try to give Katie Couric follow-up questions, but she never listens to me either!

My idea of fair and balanced is more like MSNBC's placement of Scarborough Country immediately after Olbermann's Countdown. Joe Scarborough also has opposing viewpoints on, and they too sometimes end up with cross-talk, where more than one person is talking at the same time, but he generally allows each of his guest to state their opinion.

Of course, my favorite news shows are the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. A recent survey by the Pew Research Foundation actually showed viewers of those programs had the most knowledge of current events. Incidentally, those who get their news from Fox ranked near the bottom.

 

The assumption is that the WAPO spun the version is reported even though the only things reported was informatin from military sources and that information included the uncertainty factor. The other supposting assumptions include there was the "single source" and that source was "made-up".

Yes, "rags" like Fox .......

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr19/0,4670,USDarfur,00.html

Officials said initial drafts of Bush's speech contained harsher language that was modified after two phone calls between Ban and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, first on Tuesday and then just before the address on Wednesday.

One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was describing internal deliberations, said many in the administration thought Ban's suggestion was a "lousy idea," but that Washington did not want to undermine the U.N. chief and deferred to him.



http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr18/0,4670,VirginiaTechShooting,00.html

A law enforcement official said Cho's letter also refers in the same sentence to President Bush and John Mark Karr, who falsely confessed last year to having killed child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak to the media.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html

Sampson resigned after acknowledging that he did not tell other Justice officials who testified to Congress about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information in their testimony, one official said before the official announcement.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171619,00.html

Thursday we reported that Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Nabil Shaath (search) claimed to have heard President Bush say God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan in a June 2003 meeting. Today a senior administration official told FOX News that documented notes from that meeting reveal President Bush said no such thing and that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't even mentioned.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77303,00.html

As for other possibilities, however, NASA said that until the problems with the wing were noticed, everything else appeared to be performing fine. NASA officials said, for example, that the shuttle was in the proper position when it re-entered the atmosphere on autopilot. Re-entry at too steep an angle can cause a spaceship to burn up.

Law enforcement authorities said there was no indication of terrorism; at an altitude of 39 miles, the shuttle was out of range of any surface-to-air missile, one senior government official said.

It was reported as such. If you want to assume the media made up the case because that is what you WANT to believe you will find a way to justify it, but the first report indicates the militray sources.

They would have to AGREE TO BE IDENTIFIED .....

OK, this means you believe FOX also has no credibility in the field, is lazy and biased, as well?

It seems there was a loss of touch with reality somewhere in your post.

 

I have no problem with flags being lowered because of this, but I think the length of time is too much.

 

It does, but it does not address the issue of why or how the death was portrayed as being heroic rather than accidental, which was the problem. Had this been followed by an accurate portrayal by the official military and administration releases, there would not have been the problem with lies.

This is what Fox reported so I am sure you will believe it:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6735016

In questioning what the White House knew about Tillman, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., cited a memo written by a top general seven days after Tillman's death warning it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire and making clear his warning should be conveyed to the president. President Bush made no reference to the way Tillman died in a speech delivered two days after the memo was written.

A White House spokesman has said there's no indication Bush received the warning in the memo written April 29, 2004, by then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command.

Questioned by Waxman, the Defense Department acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble said he did not believe the memo ever went to the White House.

Gimble said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent him a letter around the time Rumsfeld left office last December saying he hadn't known Tillman's death was from friendly fire until around May 20, 2004. Abizaid told Gimble he was traveling in the war theater and didn't see the memo saying Tillman's death was possibly friendly fire until after Tillman's memorial service.

An important memo and it was never sent, lost, never seen, or their dog ate it? That sounds reasonable to me that such a critical piec of information would be so easily lost ... in this administration anyway.

Mary Tillman dismissed the suggestion Abizaid hadn't seen the memo as "ridiculous," and said she believed Rumsfeld must have known. "The fact that he would have died by friendly fire and no one told Rumsfeld is ludicrous," she said.

This is a logical assumption given how things are supposed to work within a governmental and military system.

The committee had wanted to hear from Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger, the now-retired three-star general who was in charge of Army special operations and came under the heaviest criticism from military investigators for misleading information about Tillman's death.

Kensinger's attorney sent Waxman a letter last week saying that if Kensinger were called to testify he would refuse to answer questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

So, the defense against self incrimination would be used, which seems to indicate a problem within the military and the administration where truth is involved, but it is the media that is spinning these stories ..... right?