I am denouncing Ron Suskind, formerly of the Wall Street Journal

[Fallen]

Fuck that guy.


Discuss.

[Khariz]

:rofl:

[Khariz]

OMFG, Fallen, did you know that NEWSCORP owns the Wall Street Journal now? Did you know that the WSJ is now widely-known as being a "conservative rag"??????

WTF!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!

:club:

[RichardCranium]

The ends justify the means.

[Renian]

http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg


Make a thread denouncing Ron Suskind, formerly of the Wall Street Journal (before NEWSCORP bought them out), winner of the pulitzer prize in '95, who just wrote a book accusing the current administration of deliberately fabricating pre-war intelligence.

I'm sure it'll be entertaining. Not being a criticism of Obama, you guys haven't jumped at the opportunity yet. I'm still waiting..

[Ashliana]

The story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26030573/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/08/05/BL2008080501703.html?sub=AR

[Warriorbird]

The Wall Street Journal has always been plenty conservative.

[Borismere]

Wall Street Jounral: Strong Conservative Paper

Washington Post: Neocon leaning conservative paper

New York Times: Strong Liberal Paper

USA Today: Liberal leaning paper


But note the WSJ only really reports on Financial matters and not really social. Although, one can construe that financial matters are the MOST important of the social matters.

[crb]

Hmmm... anyone ever wonder if there is money making a book (I say "making" not writing for a reason). You know... say you put in a little work, added in a little scandal, picked a popular topic with a bandwagon people are already on? Do you think there could be money in that? Hmm... a million bucks or more? Maybe you can get more if you push more buttons or make it more scandalous?

....

[Gan]

I primarily read the WSJ for financial reasons.

The political stories are just an aside if I have time to review them after the other.

[Khariz]

I think what some people don't understand, and this goes for both the WSJ and the Fox News Channel, is that there is a difference between shows/articles that are Editorial in nature, and supposed to be slanted one way or another (and the source is open about that), versus News content, that is supposed to be delivered in an objective way, being obviously slanted one way or another.

When you have a News Anchor giving the same type of opinion that Al Franken or Sean Hannity would give, that's problematic. When you have a News Story giving the same type of information that the editorial page should, that's problematic.

If a newspaper chooses more of one type of editorial content over another, that doesn't make them a "rag" for that side. It's when the news stories themselves are slanted that they take that plunge.

[Gan]

/Agreed

[ClydeR]

This sort of speculation persists even though the White House has already said it is wrong. First they said Bush wanted to paint an American military plane with U.N. colors and trick Saddam into firing on it to start a war with Iraq. Then they said Bush wanted to paint American military boats with Iranian colors and have them fire on other American military boats to start a war with Iran. Now they're back to saying that Bush wanted to use subterfuge to justify the war with Iraq. Was this Suskind fellow the same person who made those other claims? There's a disturbing pattern here.

And the pattern is that the media is trying to make Bush look like a dishonest warmonger.

[Renian]

And the pattern is that the media is trying to make Bush look like a dishonest warmonger.

...That's because he is.

[crb]

This sort of speculation persists even though the White House has already said it is wrong. First they said Bush wanted to paint an American military plane with U.N. colors and trick Saddam into firing on it to start a war with Iraq. Then they said Bush wanted to paint American military boats with Iranian colors and have them fire on other American military boats to start a war with Iran. Now they're back to saying that Bush wanted to use subterfuge to justify the war with Iraq. Was this Suskind fellow the same person who made those other claims? There's a disturbing pattern here.

And the pattern is that the media is trying to make Bush look like a dishonest warmonger.
People don't remember this, not surprisingly, but anyways... Saddam was firing shit at US and UK planes flying the UN Mandated no-fly-zone patrols prior to and right up to Iraqi Freedom.

...and remember Putin gave us intelligence his spies had gathered showing meetings between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda and other terrorists. So any grand conspiracy would have to encompass him. If you wanna source, search this forum for posts by me that mention putin, I hit Ashliana over the head with those sources like a month ago.

[Warriorbird]

People who immediately believe this sort of thing are as ridiculous as people who immediately disbelieve this sort of thing.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

People who immediately believe this sort of thing are as ridiculous as people who immediately disbelieve this sort of thing.

:yeahthat:

[Stanley Burrell]

The Grand Dragon owns Fox News.

Yeah, I met the Grand Dragon in 1962 in Memphis, Tennessee. I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, just walking along, feeling good. I walk around a corner: A man walks up, hits me in the chest? Right? I fall on the ground, right? And I look up, and it's The Grand Dragon! I said, "Hey Grand Dragon, you own Fox News?" He said, "Whoops, I thought you was somebody else."

I just thought the WSJ was a newspaper for people to flex their X-Y Scatter-peen.

[ClydeR]

The two CIA agents whom Suskind cites in his book as sources regarding the allegedly forged letter about Saddam's ties to terrorists have denied any knowledge of the matter.


Confronted with the denials by Vieira on TODAY Wednesday, Suskind said: “It’s one of these instances where you’ve got a few people whose testimony could mean impeachment, ostensibly, of the President. There’s enormous pressure on both men.

“Look, I’m sympathetic to them: They’re good guys,” Suskind added. “I’ve spent a lot of time with them. Their interviews are taped.”

“Are you concerned if they don’t come forward and stand by your story, that no one’s going to buy anything in this book?” Vieira pressed.

“I’m actually not concerned, and there are a variety of reasons,” Suskind replied. “One, they talked to me length, hour after hour, about not just what occurred, but the feelings about what occurred, what day it was, all of that. All of that is on the record, in the book ... it’s all on-the-record comments.

More... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26050915/)

If there's really a tape, then why doesn't he just play it on the teevee?

[Parkbandit]

The two CIA agents whom Suskind cites in his book as sources regarding the allegedly forged letter about Saddam's ties to terrorists have denied any knowledge of the matter.



If there's really a tape, then why doesn't he just play it on the teevee?


"If it's against the current Administration, I think we can just look past the lack of evidence. Bush is evil and this is just another great example of it."

-Ashliana/Narcissiia

[Ashliana]

"If it's against the current Administration, I think we can just look past the lack of evidence. Bush is evil and this is just another great example of it."

-Ashliana/Narcissiia

"I know you haven't actually stated a position on the matter, but I'm going to go ahead and imagine your position would be that you support--and support without reason--Suskind's allegations. And who cares if they're true, anyway? We've heard so much about Bush already. Just let it go--I'm completely uninterested in considering anything that expands my current understanding."

-ParkBandit

[Kranar]

"If it's against the current Administration, I think we can just look past the lack of evidence. Bush is evil and this is just another great example of it."

-Ashliana/Narcissiia




"I know you haven't actually stated a position on the matter, but I'm going to go ahead and imagine your position would be that you support--and support without reason--Suskind's allegations. And who cares if they're true, anyway? We've heard so much about Bush already. Just let it go--I'm completely uninterested in considering anything that expands my current understanding."

-ParkBandit


:popcorn:

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

"I like turtles." -- Turtle Kid.

PS: Since PB left his reading glasses in the rec room at the retirement home:



People who immediately believe this sort of thing are as ridiculous as people who immediately disbelieve this sort of thing.

:yeahthat:

[Stanley Burrell]

"I like turtles." -- Turtle Kid.

http://feartheturtle.umd.edu/roar/roar.cfm

[waywardgs]

And the pattern is that the media is reporting about how Bush is a dishonest warmonger.

Fixed.

[Parkbandit]

"I know you haven't actually stated a position on the matter, but I'm going to go ahead and imagine your position would be that you support--and support without reason--Suskind's allegations. And who cares if they're true, anyway? We've heard so much about Bush already. Just let it go--I'm completely uninterested in considering anything that expands my current understanding."

-ParkBandit

Just because I posted this:


Make a thread denouncing Ron Suskind, formerly of the Wall Street Journal (before NEWSCORP bought them out), winner of the pulitzer prize in '95, who just wrote a book accusing the current administration of deliberately fabricating pre-war intelligence.

I'm sure it'll be entertaining. Not being a criticism of Obama, you guys haven't jumped at the opportunity yet. I'm still waiting..


And fully support McClellan for finally coming out and exposing the evil Bush administration for what it is.. a Neocon group of rich friends who want to destroy the planet and make oil executives even richer.. doesn't automatically mean I agree with Ron Suskind now. I never used the words "I agree with Ron Suskind" so you can't actually pin me down to it (even though he is wonderful and honest now that he left NEWSCORP, which is also evil)

I would post my opinion on this matter, but if pressed, I'll just say I DON'T have an opinion. And if this drama doesn't stop soon, I'm leaving this fucking forum until someone who is a really fantastic guy makes a thread to get me to come back.

So there.

-Ashliana

[Ashliana]

Just because I posted this:

And fully support McClellan for finally coming out and exposing the evil Bush administration for what it is.. a Neocon group of rich friends who want to destroy the planet and make oil executives even richer.. doesn't automatically mean I agree with Ron Suskind now. I never used the words "I agree with Ron Suskind" so you can't actually pin me down to it (even though he is wonderful and honest now that he left NEWSCORP, which is also evil)

I would post my opinion on this matter, but if pressed, I'll just say I DON'T have an opinion. And if this drama doesn't stop soon, I'm leaving this fucking forum until someone who is a really fantastic guy makes a thread to get me to come back.

So there.

-Ashliana

Ashliana, I think that considering someone's credentials before outright dismissing what they're saying (because it's politically inconvenient to me) is a waste of time! Were you raised on Mars, or something? I don't care if the person writing it was employed by a respectable news outlet for almost a decade, nor that he won one of the most prestigious awards in journalism--he's accusing people belonging to the party I support of something that poorly reflects on them.

On the other hand, when something comes out of the woodworks--completely unsubstantiated--but portrays my political opponents in a negative light, I'll jump on it. Not to outright agree with them, but just say "here's this to consider," but then criticize anyone else who does the same on the flipside. I'm a hypocritical asshole.

Thanks for reading!
~ParkBandit

[Parkbandit]

That is obviously a FABRICATION.. since I would never take the time to use the bold feature on this message board unless I was making fun of you.

Please apologize now.