RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Something this board didn't give much attention to either(10 posts)

Something this board didn't give much attention to eitherLive Steam
Nov 16, 2003 10:01 AM
I was kind of surprised myself that the memo that was uncovered by Sean Hannity that plainly states that Democrats should politicize and put a negative spin on everything related to Iraq, didn't get any play here either. In another time during our US history, something like this would have been considered almost treasonous during a time when the country is engaged on foreign soil against a hostile enemy.

When I intimated that Bush should hold certain "cards" (information related to WMD and Saddam) until a date closer to the election, the response was that would be terrible and putting troops at risk. Well I view this memo as doing the same. A unite front is required when facing an enemy on the field of battle and especially when confronting an enemy that has no face or uniform to distinguish themselves from the World populous.

I am not surprised that the Dumocrats would choose this tactic. I am more surprised that we didn't discuss it and there was very little indignant response from the broad media outlets. This author makes a good case for why.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3371&R=798C1E20C

What Memo?
The reason the mainstream media is downplaying the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee memo is because it implicates mainstream journalists.
by Hugh Hewitt
11/13/2003 12:00:00 AM


SEAN HANNITY'S big scoop is not generating the headlines it ought to. The memo Hannity obtained and made public that details the plans by Democratic staff on the Senate Intelligence Committee to politicize the committee's investigations in the service of partisan politics far overshadows in importance Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld's memo pushing the Pentagon to think about the hard problems ahead in the war on terrorism, but it has received significantly less attention than the Rumsfeld memo did.

Why?

Three reasons could account for the disparity in treatment:

The most obvious explanation is that elite media is populated by left-leaning reporters and editors not inclined to throw spotlights on a memo the contents of which Democratic senator Zell Miller has called the "first cousin of treason."

A second explanation focuses on the fact that Hannity--a radio and television guy, not a print fellow--got the scoop, and newspapers hate being upstaged by talking heads.

The third theory is the most plausible: The Democratic memo reveals that much of what the media has been focusing on for the past six months has been a set-up job. The staff and Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been selling story after story (think the Niger yellowcake and "imminent" threat controversies). Out of whole cloth, they have contrived an ambiguous but ominous speculation about the Bush administration's sinister motives for invading Iraq. Now, through this one memo, they have been revealed as nothing short of cynical political operatives. And the reporters who ran with their hints
are revealed as breathless and easily manipulated amateurs.

The media has to ignore the memo because to focus on it would be to focus on their own gullibility.

There is no escaping the hard fact that the Democratic staff embraced the "verdict first, trial later" approach to oversight. They were on a mission to undermine the president and his administration, no matter what the intelligence showed or will show, and the senators did nothing to rein in their out-of-control staff.

The committee's Democratic members are discredited, as are their previous and future attacks on the president. When it comes to the national security, the statements of Democratic senators simply cannot be trusted. The proof is in the memo.
'Almost treasonous.' 'First cousin of treason.' I love it!OldEdScott
Nov 17, 2003 8:46 AM
Maybe old Sean's 'scoop' has been downplayed, if it has, because every time he opens his mouth his sounds like a snarling, rabid dog that no sedative will work on. Except when he's talking to Zell Miller. With old Zell, he COOS. Kind of hard to take young Sean seriously.

But let me say I'm SHOCKED that a Senate staff would be acting politically. Wow. I've never heard of such a thing. If true, this is the scoop of the century. Pulitzer-worthy stuff. MAN! Stunning revelation.
Agree that Hannity is over the topLive Steam
Nov 17, 2003 8:58 AM
on many occasions. I don't agree with your assessment of the memo. Yes, party member will discuss strategy, but having the ranking Dumocratic member on the Intelligence committee that is in the middle of an investigation that is supposed to be unbiased and non-partisan, circulate such a memo, is beyond pale. The media would have crucified the Republicans. The articles theory that the liberal media have downplayed the memo because they were somehow involved in a campaign to gut Bush and his policies, is believable. The liberal media have been parroting the "Bush lied" BS without proof, every day. They also jumped on the CIA bit in order to discredit Bush. Yet that show little interest in this memo. How transparent!
Not the ranking member. Not a member at all.OldEdScott
Nov 17, 2003 9:13 AM
It's a STAFF memo.

Staff are paid to write memos like this. I've read ten zillion of 'em, Dumocrat AND Republican, and they're almost always politicized as hell. They always make a splash when the other side gets hold of 'em too.

This goes under the heading of just-another-thumbsucker, I'm sorry to say.

Once again, though, you guys are very carelessly and irresponsibly throwing the 'T' word around, which leads to me hearing jackboots at the door in my sleep, which leads to me waking up, which makes me tired and cranky, which leads me to say nasty things that cause you to use the T word, which starts the vicious cycle all over again ...

I'm gonna be exhausted before this is over.
Rockefeller isn't the ranking Dumocrat?Live Steam
Nov 17, 2003 9:27 AM
It was his staffer. He has also been the most visible and vocal member of the committee. He has directly confronted David Kay in news conferences. It looks putrid to me.

Most of the vocal Dumocrats have been rather strident and obnoxious in their attacks on this administration. The Republicans showed better comportment during Bubbas reign. It will hurt you guys in the voting booth. Mark my words!
I'd argue with you but I'm listening to the New Rush ... nmOldEdScott
Nov 17, 2003 9:29 AM
THanks. I forgot he's back :O)... nmLive Steam
Nov 17, 2003 9:33 AM
Your definitionfiltersweep
Nov 17, 2003 11:31 AM
Obnoxious?? At least it is for a worthy cause- as in billions of dollars, loss of human lives, and a Hitlerian foreign policy... unlike "during Bubbas reign."

...if well behaved equals impeachment, Bush should have already faced hours of questioning by an independent counsel. I'd hate to see what would crawl out GW's a$$ if you poked him long enough.
Hey, Ed.DJB
Nov 17, 2003 11:22 AM
It's not clear from the way you wrote your post, but you do know that it was the esteemed Democratic Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, who used the words "If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin.", don't you?

As far as your apathy over this kind of thing going on (in this particular committee), Miller has this to say:

"Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized."

http://miller.senate.gov/press/2003/110503memo.html
Yep, Zell and Steam BOTH used the T word againstOldEdScott
Nov 17, 2003 11:38 AM
fellow Americans who disagree with them politically. Vicious anti-Americanism on Zell and Steam's part, if you ask me.

As far as old Zell and his ridiculous statement, I can only ask how in God's name war and politics can be separated? As von Clauswitz said, war is just politics taken to the next level. We justify, declare (or not) and support wars politically. The military is under civilian i.e. political control, as the Founders wisely stipulated. Republicans 'do' politics to promote this war, Dems 'do' politics to oppose it. Nothing in the world wrong with that, and in fact that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be.

The only ones complaining about it are the secretive Republican ogliarchists whose tender sensibilities are offended by people disagreeing with them.