I disagree with KiU that the media should be allowed to hang itself. The media won't hang itself. It's already hanged itself. The problem is, a lot of Americans skim the news. The headlines are the news for too many people. And unless the New York Times' headline is "We Lied Our Fucking Asses Off" too many Americans aren't going to catch how fucked up the media is. It's very, very easy to get too self-involved on the internet. We're online. We see all sorts of different news. We see all the different viewpoints and all the blogs out there that take outlets like the NYT to the mat. Baby-boomers and older like, say, my parents? Not so much. They rely on those headlines asa main source of information.

So, I *want* the president out there in prime time telling the American people directly what an absolute shit job the media is doing. I realize the media is a powerful force. I realize what the president is up against. But, I want a president who is willing to fight a war. And fighting a war doesn't only mean cutting down terrorists and the regimes that support them. Fighting this particular war is about fighting the ideologies that *excuse* that terror and evil. It's fighting the people who diminish the full scope of the evil we face. That's why I want the media to show the pics of Paul Anderson or Nick Berg. The people have to see and understand. And those who hide it, or rationalize it as "a response to Abu Graib" need to be fought as fervently as any terrorist.

For me, it's all of a piece. The president needs to address all fronts. He can't throw out these mealy-mouthed rebuttals. He needs to come out against the lefty media, guns blazing, take the case to the people, and *point fingers* for fuck's sake. Tell the American people "The New York Times reported . . ." and tell them why that's fucked up. They'll understand. They'll get it. They'll side with him.

I just get the feeling Bush doesn't trust the American people fully. That, no matter what he says, he's too beholden to Clintonian thinking that media led polls and focus groups chock full of soft-feminized soccer moms are the people he should be out to convince. What a load of horse-shit. And if he keeps that up, he can kiss the presidency good-bye in November.

JMO

Until our president

And just one more comment, forgive my blathering. And if the inexperience of my youth is showing, feel very free to smack me around a bit.

If America is that divided, if it is more polarized and partisan than ever, it's time to toss aside the general attitude that a president should be above petty sniping, or above the media itself. From Bush, I feel we get lofty words and ideals from on high. And even if I agree with what he's saying, I get the feeling that we're dealing with an aristocrat. "I can't be bothered with the pettiness of those beneath me. I won't address such common filth." And that's not an indictment of Bush. That's an attitude that I think is attendant to the presidency. But the war is too important. In something so serious, where our existence as a free nation is at stake, I want a president to chuck that bs and go to town on those within the media who oppose him. Cheney calling the NYT article outrageous is a start. But it's not enough. Cheney comes off like the slickster, the partisan, the man who does the dirty work. We need the presidency, with all the dignity and importance that accompanies it, to tackle these people head on.

When Bush does that, *then* I'll believe he understands this war. That it's not only a military exercise, but an ideological one. That he's a man that understands ideas really are important. Last week, I read endless columns about the Reagan revolution being an intellectual revolution. The war on terror is no different. Multi-culturalist insanity and weak, moral equivalence must be vanquished on intellectual grounds. And the president has to be the guy to do it.

Well Ace, you have caught onto something that I've seen for some time. A split in the CIA intelligence about where we stand in the War on Terror. Now, I wonder who in hell is this "Anonymous" who's in the beltway of intelligence gathering, and is coming out with another book about how 'we're playing into the hands of Osama Bin'..."Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer. "
This person is SO against Bush policy on the war on terror, it's as though he's a rabid liberal whose beating the same drum as Dick Clarke, yet he's 'In the Know'... I say, if it's SO Damn important to this idiot what we Americans should know, let him write these books with his NAME Attached to it!
Check out the UK Gaurdian for this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1242638,00.html

Rob-- I admire your suggestion to Bush to take off the gloves and 'call bullshit' on the NY Times and other media outlets when they lie like the Democrat shills they are. Have you emailed the White House with this? Perhaps find two dozen friends who agree with you and get *them* to do the same.

Of course, don't be surprised if the President doesn't take your suggestion. There's an old maxim--possibly untrue, of course--that "presidents should act presidential". While I agree with your ideas, lots of experienced political advisors would tell Mr. Bush to have V.P. Cheney do the tough talking, since Cheney is already viewed as a bad guy and power-behind-the-throne, while most Bush critics see W as just stupid or venal. Undecided voters--who will almost certainly decide the election--don't know either way, so if Bush stays "presidential" he may keep them, while going on the attack may alienate them.

Again, I agree with your advice, but am simply saying that there's another strategy (or two or ten) that has a pretty good track record too.

I think you each have a point, but consider this:

When you're told not to touch the hot pots and pans because they'll burn you, maybe you listened and never touched one but then again maybe you did it anyway. Touch one once though, and the lesson is learned right away...

Ace posted not too long ago about the Iraqis needing to realize that there are consequences for their actions. I agreed with that point of view (though I didn't actually post my agreement at the time) for the simple reason that I knew that things would get better once the Iraqis were in charge of their own future instead of "having the U.S. to kick around." And witness what has happened thus far this month and how many fewer of our soldiers are dying...

How many "independents" and "Reagan Democrats" would believe the President if he were to come out and say "Don't believe the mainstream media, they're biased against me." Answer: None...They would dismiss it as partisan whining. People need to see these things with their own eyes.

The mainstream media is quickly getting to the point where they're practically screaming at the public "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" I, for one, am truly enjoying the show...

I understand your concern, but I've posted links on my new blog to recent surveys that prove that it's working. Every day the media loses its influence because fewer and fewer people believe them.

Don't make the mistake of assuming superior knowledge because we are "sophisticated enough" to get our news from someone other than CNN or ABC/NBC/CBS...That's the trap that academic elites and intellectuals fell into and look what it has led to.

You and I are no different than the vast majority of the American people who are smart enough to smell the B.S. when they step in it...

It doesn't happen overnight, but it is happening...

Anybody watching commission members Veniste and Lehman on Meet the Press? Veniste is toeing the liberal line but Lehman stated there was indeed weapons cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Isn't that enough? Lehman also refused to back Veniste's claim that the Prague meeting didnt happen.
These guys both sit on the commission and seem to have very different points of view. How are they going to sign both their names to one report?

Here's Lehman's comments today:
"MR. LEHMAN: Well, I really totally disagree with what I thought was outrageously irresponsible journalism, to portray what the staff statement--and again, this is a staff statement; the commissioners have not addressed this issue yet--to portray it as contradicting what the administration said. There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that. In fact, as you'll soon hear from Joe Klein, President Clinton justified his strike on the Sudan "pharmaceutical" site because it was thought to be manufacturing VX gas with the help of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Since then, that's been validated. There has been traces of Empta that comes straight from Iraq, and this confounds the Republicans, who accused Clinton of doing it for political purposes. But it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.

The Bush administration has never said that they participated in the 9/11 attack. They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda over a period of 10 years, at least. And now there's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written because, as you know, new intelligence is coming in steadily from the interrogations in Guantanamo and in Iraq and from captured documents. And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed. But the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have. And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence."

I want Bush to air the laundry in a press conference too.

My husband and I were watching Fox News this morning. In 2 minutes we learned that before the war, a message from North Korea to Libya had been intercepted which indicated that Saddam had nuclear scientists holed up in Libya....basically went like: '...if the Americans attack Iraq, what are we going to do if documents are found? And who is going to pay these scientists once Saddam's payroll is eliminated?'
Also some more about how Putin had warned Bush that Russian intelligence had determined that Saddam was making plans to strike the US with a terrorist attack.

I switched the channel to MSNBC and we were treated to fluff pieces and a quick reference to Iraq- some pundit was saying that 911 had nothing to do with Saddam, as if to disprove the administration's assertion...which they never did assert that, so why bother??

My husband and I watched for about 10 minutes- just saw BS crap stories and more discrediting of Bush. NO MENTION of the intelligence supporting Bush's actions.

They even had time to make oblique references to the bad US economy (??? they must not have heard the cowbells).

My husband snarled at me to change the channel.

There are probably about 3 news outlets between TV and radio that aren't embargoing every bit of real news that disproves that Bush is an idiot. The truth isn't serving their party line right now, therefore it doesn't exist.

It's almost like the communists airbrushing people out of photos, out of history after they fell from favor. You only exist if we tell you that you exist.

Most disgusting of all? I went to my Dad's today for Father's Day, and he doesn't get Fox News in his satellite package. Just CNN.

OH THE HUMANITY!!

Join the Linux community. Linuxwaves.net