Just Make It Out To Halliburton - American Empire Posted by Cher (Tuesday September 09 2003 @ 11:13PM EDT)

On Sunday, Bush asked the nation for $87 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan and fight terrorism. While the figure $87 billion was the only concrete detail to emerge from the speech, the details of the how that enormous sum will be spent are still sketchy. Imagine that. The LA Times reported that admin officials admitted that $87 billion wasn’t going to cover it either. At least another $55 billion would be necessary for rebuilding, but they didn’t plan to ask for it in this election cycle. Smart move. Want to know how an outlay of $87 billion would stack up to other budget spending, WaPo has your answer. Sick yet? There is evidence that some members of congress are ready to get out the rubber stamp, “Nonetheless, Mr. Warner said, Congress should provide the $87 billion Mr. Bush has requested, mostly for operations in Iraq, and leave the post-mortems for later.” If you’re from Virginia, that’s your senator talking. Why not write and ask Sen. Warner if he plans to rubber stamp any $87 billion bill that comes across his desk. How about asking a few questions first. Like, why were CIA warnings about post-Iraq planning ignored? WaPo’s Walter Pincus has your story here. Or does this money support NO BID contracts or can we open it up to any company that wants to bid – not just Halliburton? As a good consumer, I want the best buy. And how about that strategy? Some pretty high-level former Bush admin officials seem to think there isn't one: "There is no strategy or mechanism for putting the pieces together," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, and so, he said, "we're in danger of failing."

< No Child's Left Behind | Bandwagon Fans >

By kevin the one-armed boy (Wednesday September 10 2003 @ 07:48PM EDT)

Hmmmm... Washington Post LA Times NY Times Do I sense a slight trend here in the slant you prefer in your news sources?

[ reply | parent ]

By Funkman (Wednesday September 10 2003 @ 08:37PM EDT) Please point out the lies in the posted articles then. A fact whether we agree with it or not, is still a fact. [ reply | parent ]

By kevin the one-armed boy (Thursday September 11 2003 @ 08:01AM EDT) Did I say there were lies in the articles? Thanks for preaching to me and clearing up the 'fact is a fact thing' but the ONLY point I made is that the author was using liberal media publications to support her Bush bashing. Call me unscientific but most of her "I hate Bush" diatribes use some combination of these anti-conservative muckrak,,,er, newspapers to validate her views. [ reply | parent ]

By Cher (Thursday September 11 2003 @ 10:13AM EDT) Holy Shit! Fox New reported that the national guard troops would have to stay an additional SIX months in Iraq!! U.S. National Guard, Reservists to Stay Longer in Iraq Those Bush-bashing bastards..... [ reply | parent ]

By kevin the one-armed boy (Thursday September 11 2003 @ 10:56AM EDT) Did I praise Fox News in any way shape or form? They're as messed up as the rest of them just from the opposite side of the fence. I WOULD be more interested in Bush bashing articles from you that used traditionally conservative publications as that would signal a real story and not an agenda. [ reply | parent ]

By Cher (Thursday September 11 2003 @ 11:07AM EDT) Asking questions about the $87 billion request represents an "agenda"? Whose, exactly? It's a fact that Bush asked for the money and that we know very little about how it is going to be used - as we know very little about the pre-war planning of the post-Iraq phase. All these questions should be asked in a democracy, and I would expect mainstream newspapers to be printing articles and analysis about this issue. (God knows few in congress are going to speak up!) It's a boatload of money with lots of question marks in between. As for the "so-called-liberal-media" excuse, it's weak, very weak. You're a much better debater that that. Furthermore, I don't cite conservative publications much as I wouldn't link to a Nation article to prove a point. Real scoops DO occasionally happen in the political press, but most often important things are left out to make a point - things that are covered in respected newspapers, the AP, and Reuters. However, I DO fully expect to see some hard questions come out of Kristol's Weekly Standard. When I find them, I'll post them just for you. Cheers, Cher [ reply | parent ]

By kevin the one-armed boy (Thursday September 11 2003 @ 12:47PM EDT) And to think by the end of yesterday you thought your post wasn't going to elicit any responses. Cheers back at you, ktoab [ reply | parent ]

By Anonymous (Wednesday September 10 2003 @ 11:01PM EDT) If it's not on Faux News, then it didn't happen.... [ reply | parent ]

By JU-LIE-SIN (Friday September 12 2003 @ 01:09AM EDT)

KTOAB: What print news sources, pray tell, do you deem neutral? And have you read The New York Times, the L.A. Times, and the Washington Post on a regular enough basis to form your own opinion of those news sources as being "liberal"? Can you cite one example from each in tomorrow's (Friday's) paper to support your argument? If you can prove this to me, I will be grateful.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Friday September 12 2003 @ 07:33AM EDT) In order to accomplish this task, he will first need to define "liberal." According to Rush Limbaugh, a liberal is one who coddles illegal immigrants and murders young American citizens in the womb. Ergo, to demonstrate liberal bias, KTOAB will need to produce an article that contradicts something that Rush Limbaugh bellowed on the air or in print. Since Limbaugh contends nicotine is not addictive, that more American indians are alive now then in 1492 and that you can be charged with "religious harrassment" if there is a bible at your desk, KTOAB should have little problem demonstrating his contention. [ reply | parent ]

By kevin the one-armed boy (Friday September 12 2003 @ 01:36PM EDT) Julie, I live for your graciousness. Really, I do. Lots of folks have spent a lot more money and time researching the bias of many media outlets. Expecting me to buy 3 papers, read them cover to cover and report back to you when this type and volume of research is already available is a little dim (although it is pretty rich that you've assigned me homework). I'll list some web sources for you to ponder but I suspect you'll like my sources about as much as I like the rags that you are supporting. Julie's Homework Assignment 1 Julie's Homework Assignment 2 Julie's Homework Assignment 3 Now you make sure to read all of these and get back to me. I'll be real grateful. [ reply | parent ]

By Julie (Sunday September 14 2003 @ 08:35PM EDT) Dear ktoab: I have been referred to by many things by countless personalities, but "dim" has never been one of them. Congratulations on being the first! Now, onto the matter at hand: To me, reading 3 papers front to back is not that big of a task. I truly apologize if that was too daunting for you. I'd like to assist you in keeping your world view safe and unchallenged, so I shant offer any more assignments. (But here's a little tip: Stay away from Ayn Rand in the bookstore; her novels are often over 1,000 pages.) I was thrilled you gave me some stuff to check out, so I went to websites. As for "The Daily Howler," aren't they making fun of the guy who claimed that the Washington Times (note--not the Washington Post) and The New York Times has a liberal bias? In case you didn't read it yourself, here's what it says: "But duh. Does unequal usage of ['right-wing extremist' and 'left-wing extremist'] show a liberal bias? We were dubious, so we did a test---we checked out the use of these terms at the Washington Times. How many times did the Wed Pruden rag use those terms in the last five years? Our finding? The Washington Times reeks of liberal bias! In fact, liberal bias is even worse than that found in The New York Times. That's right, folks. Over the past five years, NEXIS says that 'left-wing' extremist' has appeard in the Washington Times all of eight times total. But the term 'right-wing extremist' has appeared there 72 times, exactly nine times as often. SURELY THIS FACT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE PAPER IS FULL OF LIBERAL BIAS.But that's the conclusion that Sullivan's method would force us to reach. There's a word for such a dude. It's 'poseur.' " The Times Watch was interesting. Some of their comments I felt were on target. However, the majority to me seemed to be grasping. As for Coloring the News, the article this site is featuring appeared in the Los Angeles Times, yes? That would mean that the Los Angeles Times is promoting non-biased news sources. Well, I think that's all I have to say at this point. I hope I haven't let you down. [ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!