NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just stating my opinion of my impressions with the missing weapons story, as well as my feeling for the local people here in Ohio.

Here go my impressions about the story/media (not really well-put together because I'm about to go to sleep...):

-->Kerry has advocated a smarter better-thought out Iraq war. He criticized Bush for not looking at all the evidence before going into Iraq; has, throughout what I've seen on TV (and in Ohio we see Way too much of these two on TV), tried to make himself look like a more composed, studious candidate.

-->This is a fresh story, and journalists love to exaggerate in general, it sells papers, why not distance himself from that and remember that he's the studious and cool one under pressure?

-->The story was broken/headed by '60 minutes' and the 'New York Times', both fairly bottom of the credibility barrel amongst us commonfolk (between Rather-gate and that Glas kid, I don't know which was worse).

-->The day, perhaps the hour the story first broke, there was immediately a stump speech given by Kerry about how much of a failure Bush is. we commonfolk don't usually look for politically-driven, newspaper-guided sheep in a President.

All of these together have reinforced the local idea that Kerry is a flip-flopper, or more accurately, that he does whatever he thinks will get him elected. It also supports those that believe there is a CNN-CBS-ABC-NBC-USA TODAY-TIMES Liberal Alliance. "Is there any hope for honest media sources?" many say.

So, will someone please give me a good reason why Kerry hasn't let reason win out and give the information a chance to come forward? Why is he jumping to conclusions? And is there evidence to discount the liberal media conspiracy theory?

Well, if you think Kerry has a well-articulated plan for Iraq, I guess you'd be prone to believe just about anything. ;)

I do sympathize with Ohio residents though.. that much political spin on t.v. for so long has got to hurt.

Also, I think we must remember that CBS intended the story for Nov. 1, and that the NYT somehow got mixed signals and let it out early, catching Kerry off-guard.

Well, if you think Kerry has a well-articulated plan for Iraq, I guess you'd be prone to believe just about anything. ;)

I do sympathize with Ohio residents though.. that much political spin on t.v. for so long has got to hurt.

...as opposed to Bush's plan which...oh that's right, there is no Bush plan for Iraq, how silly of me.

On the flip side to your comment Chipmunks, Bush is criticising Kerry for not waiting for all the facts to come in before making a judgement. Notice how he did exactly this when contemplating a course of action for Iraq back in 2002-03. I mean look at all the WMDs we've found.

Personally i would be more concerned about a man who led a country to a costly and pointless (please no one give me my 'we liberated millions of people crap'- the country is still a mess and that wasn't the real reason for in anyway) war, as opposed to a man who (assuming your right here and Kerry is wrong) makes an erroneous assertion about weapons, the non-existence of which will be a good thing for the US.

[QUOTE=Morroko]On the flip side to your comment Chipmunks, Bush is criticising Kerry for not waiting for all the facts to come in before making a judgement. Notice how he did exactly this when contemplating a course of action for Iraq back in 2002-03. I mean look at all the WMDs we've found.[QUOTE]

Exactly, here's the parallel comparison between your point and my original post:

>Kerry wanted to be patient before now he doesn't

>Bush didn't want to be patient before and now he does

I feel I speak for many of us worse-spun-than-a-50's-swing-dancer people in Ohio andother 'battlegrounds' when I ask,

"For the love of all that is good and right, is there someone running who's consistent!?!?"

I'm starting to guess that if I'm looking for consistency I'll have to go with Nader, who has, consistently, lost his presidential races.

Personally i would be more concerned about a man who led a country to a costly and pointless (please no one give me my 'we liberated millions of people crap'- the country is still a mess and that wasn't the real reason for in anyway) war, as opposed to a man who (assuming your right here and Kerry is wrong) makes an erroneous assertion about weapons, the non-existence of which will be a good thing for the US.

The problem for Kerry is, if he got 100% of the vote among those who consider going into Iraq a bad decision, he'd lose in a landslide. Kerry needs that crossover vote, and jumping on a story with conflicting facts and explainations, which was intended as a softball lob for him to hit out of the park, reinforces the opinion that Kerry will make political hay out of anything to serve his interests. That's his dilemma. ;)

I'm just stating my opinion of my impressions with the missing weapons story, as well as my feeling for the local people here in Ohio.

Here go my impressions about the story/media (not really well-put together because I'm about to go to sleep...):

-->Kerry has advocated a smarter better-thought out Iraq war. He criticized Bush for not looking at all the evidence before going into Iraq; has, throughout what I've seen on TV (and in Ohio we see Way too much of these two on TV), tried to make himself look like a more composed, studious candidate.

-->This is a fresh story, and journalists love to exaggerate in general, it sells papers, why not distance himself from that and remember that he's the studious and cool one under pressure?

-->The story was broken/headed by '60 minutes' and the 'New York Times', both fairly bottom of the credibility barrel amongst us commonfolk (between Rather-gate and that Glas kid, I don't know which was worse).

-->The day, perhaps the hour the story first broke, there was immediately a stump speech given by Kerry about how much of a failure Bush is. we commonfolk don't usually look for politically-driven, newspaper-guided sheep in a President.

All of these together have reinforced the local idea that Kerry is a flip-flopper, or more accurately, that he does whatever he thinks will get him elected. It also supports those that believe there is a CNN-CBS-ABC-NBC-USA TODAY-TIMES Liberal Alliance. "Is there any hope for honest media sources?" many say.

So, will someone please give me a good reason why Kerry hasn't let reason win out and give the information a chance to come forward? Why is he jumping to conclusions? And is there evidence to discount the liberal media conspiracy theory?
I've got relatives in Ohio who say the opposite. From what they've said its Fox that has been by far the worst in Ohio, with the others just peddling to both sides. Apparently although some of the major stations have been partly pro-left, they have also been very pro-right in some of the news they choose to air instead of that which they don't. Remember, these stations are jockeying for ratings, and they show people what they want to see.

As for your final paragraph let me say: A) Look at Kerry's site http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
and see the plans very easily layed out.
B) Look at Bush's site
http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/
and see a plan that I) Spends a lot of money II) Says it will spend less money than before III) Proposes to cut government revenues further

About your "alliance", how much did you hear about Kerry being "left of the mainstream" without any logical proof? How much did you hear 30 year old trash being dredged up? How much did you hear any real issues discussed? I live out East and I can't find a single newstation that airs the real issues. You want left wing bias? How about showing the real issues, and stop focusing on this random drivel that does nothing but help the right.


I'm a Republican, and I support credible news reporting, unbiased, and on the real issues.

I'm just stating my opinion of my impressions with the missing weapons story, as well as my feeling for the local people here in Ohio.

Here go my impressions about the story/media (not really well-put together because I'm about to go to sleep...):

-->Kerry has advocated a smarter better-thought out Iraq war. He criticized Bush for not looking at all the evidence before going into Iraq; has, throughout what I've seen on TV (and in Ohio we see Way too much of these two on TV), tried to make himself look like a more composed, studious candidate.

-->This is a fresh story, and journalists love to exaggerate in general, it sells papers, why not distance himself from that and remember that he's the studious and cool one under pressure?

-->The story was broken/headed by '60 minutes' and the 'New York Times', both fairly bottom of the credibility barrel amongst us commonfolk (between Rather-gate and that Glas kid, I don't know which was worse).

-->The day, perhaps the hour the story first broke, there was immediately a stump speech given by Kerry about how much of a failure Bush is. we commonfolk don't usually look for politically-driven, newspaper-guided sheep in a President.

All of these together have reinforced the local idea that Kerry is a flip-flopper, or more accurately, that he does whatever he thinks will get him elected. It also supports those that believe there is a CNN-CBS-ABC-NBC-USA TODAY-TIMES Liberal Alliance. "Is there any hope for honest media sources?" many say.

So, will someone please give me a good reason why Kerry hasn't let reason win out and give the information a chance to come forward? Why is he jumping to conclusions? And is there evidence to discount the liberal media conspiracy theory?

I guess my only response could be: how is this a liberal media conspiracy theory? Let's present the facts:

Fact 1: George Bush invaded Iraq with 140,000 men, which was about 60,000 less than Eric Shinseki, head of the Joint Chiefs at the time, recommended as the absolute minimum needed both to take and secure Iraq. Shinseki was summarily dismissed from his post and replaced.

Fact 2: 2 days before D-day, the U.N. weapon's inspectors warned Bush about the fact that there were about 340 tons of weapons-grade explosives in the Al-Qaqaa site. How did they know? They'd just inspected it, that's why.

Fact 3: In the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad, American troops asked for permission to inspect the site and take measures to deal with anything they came across. This might have been simple guarding, or they might have disposed of it. According to the reporter's who went with them, this call was overridden, and troops were given orders to visually inspect only: as in, they were to go to Al-Qaqaa, check the doors to see if they were locked, and then move out, without at any point actually entering the building to see if the weaponry was still in place.

Fact 4: At some point between the weapon's inspectors visit to Al-Qaqaa and now, someone systematically removed all the contents of the facility. Some material has been traced to terrorist/insurgent groups.

Now, how do you peg this is an action of the "liberal media?" Did Dan Rather move the munitions? Because if he didn't, then you're blaming the wrong guy. It's not CNN's fault for reporting a clusterf*$k, or John Kerry's for pouncing on it, so much as it's George Bush's for not fixing the problem when he had the chance. If he had the troops, then he should have inspected and guarded the site. If he didn't have the troops, then he shouldn't have invaded in the first place.