Update on Bush and the war
Jan. 12th, 2004 08:25 amThanks to a movie, gaming night (Settlers of the Stone Age is awesome!), and Emory's power outage, I'm way behind on comments to this post. But since a few people felt that a former member of Bush's cabinet wasn't a good enough source (funny, no one had any problem with any of the "sources" used against the Clintons), let's visit our good friends at Project Censored. For those not in the know, Project Censored tracks the major stories that are, time and again, overlooked by the "liberal" corporate-owned (and corporate-protective) press.
Today's story is on the think tank set up by Cheney and his cronies during the Clinton Administration for the purpose of creating a viable rationale for war on Iraq. It's called PNAC, likely because they need to create (or take advantage of) a national panic to accomplish their needs.
Yeah, what a shock.
Today's story is on the think tank set up by Cheney and his cronies during the Clinton Administration for the purpose of creating a viable rationale for war on Iraq. It's called PNAC, likely because they need to create (or take advantage of) a national panic to accomplish their needs.
Yeah, what a shock.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 07:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 07:16 am (UTC)He seems to be doing just fine so far. The media seems to miss something on the NH points chart, that Clark and Kerry's ratings are on an inverse erlationship.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 07:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 07:29 am (UTC)Are you aware that when you look at campaign positions on *their own* sites that Clark is actually running left of Dean?
Clark has several things in his past also that are rather politically dangerous, including his being fired by Clinton, and the plaintive order he gave to fire upon a Russian contingent in the Balkans (IIRC).
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 07:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 08:07 am (UTC)There's a difference here, one is perception, the other is an honest-to-goodness campaign stance.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 08:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 08:17 am (UTC)So, what you're saying is, you'd gladly vote for a shell of a man who successfully puts up the facade that he's the best thing for the country?
Isn't that what happened with Bush? I don't think a patch is really going to plug the hole this time, we need to get the real thing (Dean) in there, and fix it for good.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 08:27 am (UTC)Furthermore I don't buy at all the notion that Clark would be in any way more of the same. You cannot tell me that he is some kind of ad-hock solution or 'patch', the problem is clearly that the men currently in power have a small set of interests that they have proven consistently that they will sell anyone down the river to achieve. It's kind of a crisis, most certainly criminal.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 08:31 am (UTC)http://www.fair.org/
Their main goal, however, is uncovering media bias, aas well as deliberate media manipulation of the public. Sadly for politicians, corporate leaders, and others, this usually means exposing them.
Fair produces "Counter Spin", an NPR funded program. This does not stop "Counter Spin" from exposing NPR news bias and misleadings.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-12 09:43 am (UTC)I think Dean will win the nomination, but lose to Bush in the election.