The Democrat Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think that's what we are saying is better. But by trying to get all of it, the understanding of the decisions behind the war and the timeline of it, his focus was too broad and he was not the key player in any of the major stories of the time, even with his unprecedented access.

Who cares if he was a key player? He's a journalist - by nature he's not a key player, and if he had been, that actually would make things more biased, probably. Better he wasn't.

 

[bmags]

Who cares if he was a key player? He's a journalist - by nature he's not a key player, and if he had been, that actually would make things more biased, probably. Better he wasn't.

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant by key player. The at worst illegal, at best immoral/provocative, actions that the Bush administration was taking part in were not uncovered by the man given more access than anyone else. So instead, a couple free lance journalists through unbelievable work were able to uncover information without that access, and in my opinion, served the public more good than the theoretical mindset for Bush.

 

I don't believe Bush going to war with Iraq was done with ill intention. And to his credit he did go to Congress for a resolution, when he didn't have to. But, it was always the administrations tactics and methodology that were heinous to me, and Woodward failed to identify it because he's too removed now. The guy always brags about how he has more time than the average journalist. He should've spent some of that identifying some key aspects to the war that reflect a great deal more light on the man's actions than his mere words.

[bmags]

Okay, let me continue to narrow this down, in my mind:

 

There are two huge names in journalism with very different tactics: Woodward and Hersh. I think both of them miss the point. Hersh identifies problems, but frankly, they are usually too large to be taken seriously (are we ratcheting up for war in Iran), uses a crap ton of unidentified sources and gets damning information tainted by this fact. Woodward has an uncanny ability to get everyone to talk on the record and gets really interesting, albeit, historical information now.

 

And below them, are a bunch of really savvy, talented journalists are identifying singular problems (corruption from contractors, torture, etc.) getting people to speak on the record, getting really incredible documents and put info into the marketplace that allowed people to question how this war was handled, what is being carried out in our name for safety.

 

I think woodward and hersh's ego is too large, and they are trying to tackle too much. Hersh's mind couldn't settle for My Lai anymore, dude would try and tackle the administration plans for China and communists role in Vietnam. I can't imagine Woodward settling for diving into a small break in anymore. They're trying to tackle too much and end up not getting to the point of anything.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think you misunderstood what I meant by key player. The at worst illegal, at best immoral/provocative, actions that the Bush administration was taking part in were not uncovered by the man given more access than anyone else. So instead, a couple free lance journalists through unbelievable work were able to uncover information without that access, and in my opinion, served the public more good than the theoretical mindset for Bush.

 

I don't believe Bush going to war with Iraq was done with ill intention. And to his credit he did go to Congress for a resolution, when he didn't have to. But, it was always the administrations tactics and methodology that were heinous to me, and Woodward failed to identify it because he's too removed now. The guy always brags about how he has more time than the average journalist. He should've spent some of that identifying some key aspects to the war that reflect a great deal more light on the man's actions than his mere words.

I don't know what other pieces or books you are referring to, but I haven't seen or read anything that was as useful in identifying the tactics and decisions made in the administration as what Woodward put out. I think perhaps you were looking for his books to be something they were not - a study of the effects of the decisions. The whole purpose of Woodward's books was to get a view into the administration and its decisionmaking. He did that.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Okay, let me continue to narrow this down, in my mind:

 

There are two huge names in journalism with very different tactics: Woodward and Hersh. I think both of them miss the point. Hersh identifies problems, but frankly, they are usually too large to be taken seriously (are we ratcheting up for war in Iran), uses a crap ton of unidentified sources and gets damning information tainted by this fact. Woodward has an uncanny ability to get everyone to talk on the record and gets really interesting, albeit, historical information now.

 

And below them, are a bunch of really savvy, talented journalists are identifying singular problems (corruption from contractors, torture, etc.) getting people to speak on the record, getting really incredible documents and put info into the marketplace that allowed people to question how this war was handled, what is being carried out in our name for safety.

 

I think woodward and hersh's ego is too large, and they are trying to tackle too much. Hersh's mind couldn't settle for My Lai anymore, dude would try and tackle the administration plans for China and communists role in Vietnam. I can't imagine Woodward settling for diving into a small break in anymore. They're trying to tackle too much and end up not getting to the point of anything.

I personally think you need both kinds. I don't expect Woodward to dive into "small breaks", and I don't expect a paper journalist to do something as large in scope as his books either.

 

[bmags]

I personally think you need both kinds. I don't expect Woodward to dive into "small breaks", and I don't expect a paper journalist to do something as large in scope as his books either.

 

It bothers me that someone with more access than any other journalist did not uncover any of that. It makes me wonder if he knew, but decided not to compromise his access.

[BigSqwert]

Some asshole on Facebook created and distributed a poll asking if Obama should be killed. USSS is investigating, and the poll is of course no longer available.

LOL at the 2nd comment: http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/secre...onion_rss_daily

[bmags]

Cool, there was an article in NewsMax advocating a military coup. Was taken down.

[BigSqwert]

Cool, there was an article in NewsMax advocating a military coup. Was taken down.

WTF?! Are you serious?

[HuskyCaucasian]

WTF?! Are you serious?

Via TPM-

In a column published yesterday, Newsmax's John L. Perry wrote that there is a "gaining" possibility that the military will stage a coup to "resolve the 'Obama problem.'"

 

Newsmax has apparently removed the column from its site. Links are now redirected to the homepage, and Perry's author page has no mention of his latest work.

 

The coup -- which would be "civilized" and "bloodless," according to Perry -- would consist of a "patriotic general" sitting down with the President and working out a new system in which "skilled, military-trained, nation-builders" would "do the serious business of governing and defending the nation" while Obama would still be allowed to make speeches.

 

Obama, he said, is inviting such a "family intervention."

[BigSqwert]

And here lies the difference between the p**** Democratic Party and the GOP. If the roles were reversed anyone associated with Newsmax would be guilty of sedition and treason whereas right now this story will be swept under the rug and we'll keep hearing about ACORN.

 

Damn that liberal media.

Edited September 30, 2009 by BigSqwert

[bmags]

GOP is patriotic.

[southsider2k5]

And here lies the difference between the p**** Democratic Party and the GOP. If the roles were reversed anyone associated with Newsmax would be guilty of sedition and treason whereas right now this story will be swept under the rug and we'll keep hearing about ACORN.

 

Damn that liberal media.

 

The funny thing is that you contradicted yourself just by posting links from actual liberal media. The other big difference is that I doubt newsmax is federally funded and had the now President appear before them and tell them that they were going to shape policy in his administration.

[bmags]

The funny thing is that you contradicted yourself just by posting links from actual liberal media.

 

that's not a contradiction.

[BigSqwert]

The funny thing is that you contradicted yourself just by posting links from actual liberal media.

 

 

When people talk about the liberal media they are referring to main stream media. I linked to a noted liberal site. I'm suggesting that the MSM will not cover this story.

[southsider2k5]

When people talk about the liberal media they are referring to main stream media. I linked to a noted liberal site. I'm suggesting that the MSM will not cover this story.

 

I think there is a big difference between the actions of a right wing nut, and governmentally funded organziation, but maybe that is just me.

[bmags]

newsmax is a pretty popular right wing publication. How large does your audience have to be before you stop dismissing these people as "just one right wing nut"

[NorthSideSox72]

newsmax is a pretty popular right wing publication. How large does your audience have to be before you stop dismissing these people as "just one right wing nut"

Its one right-wing nut writer, who I am sure who have an audience of right-wing nut followers.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that the far right wing of the GOP pretty much spazzed out during the past year, seeing that it appeared the Dems and moderates were taking over, and that the modern version of conservatism was failing. The result is what we have now - a larger number of idiots than normal, shouting from the rooftops. Those idiots were always there, they just weren't as vocal or exposed. Fortunately, they are still a small minority.

 

[southsider2k5]

Its one right-wing nut writer, who I am sure who have an audience of right-wing nut followers.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that the far right wing of the GOP pretty much spazzed out during the past year, seeing that it appeared the Dems and moderates were taking over, and that the modern version of conservatism was failing. The result is what we have now - a larger number of idiots than normal, shouting from the rooftops. Those idiots were always there, they just weren't as vocal or exposed. Fortunately, they are still a small minority.

 

These people have always been out there. No one paid attention to them until the Dems figured out that they could demonize them into winning elections.

[bmags]

Its one right-wing nut writer, who I am sure who have an audience of right-wing nut followers.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that the far right wing of the GOP pretty much spazzed out during the past year, seeing that it appeared the Dems and moderates were taking over, and that the modern version of conservatism was failing. The result is what we have now - a larger number of idiots than normal, shouting from the rooftops. Those idiots were always there, they just weren't as vocal or exposed. Fortunately, they are still a small minority.

 

a small minority getting an unusual amount of press time + leeway to make outlandish comments.

[bmags]

These people have always been out there. No one paid attention to them until the Dems figured out that they could demonize them into winning elections.

 

Am i the only one that remembers the 90s?

[lostfan]

Am i the only one that remembers the 90s?

Just what I was going to type. And I didn't even pay attention to politics in the 90s.

[southsider2k5]

Am i the only one that remembers the 90s?

 

Why bother? Everyone has forgotten about everything bad the Dems did then, so I figured it was OK to forget the GOP sins as well.

[lostfan]

I hate to be baited into the "you do it too" game but conservatives do that demonizing s*** all the time. They're doing it right now to a pretty extreme degree.

[bmags]

Why bother? Everyone has forgotten about everything bad the Dems did then, so I figured it was OK to forget the GOP sins as well.

 

yes i know, the poor conservative victims, your life is hard.

 

My point was this hysterical rhetoric isn't something new.