Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Big Media Coverage
Could they be more oblivious
I've never been one to think the media has a biased as much as I've thought they we're incompetent. Tonight again confirmed my suspicions. Chris Mathews takes the cake. After the speech he comments.
"The President highlighted the links between terrorism and the events of 9/11".
Gee Chris, do you think the events of 9/11 may be somehow connected to terrorism? MORON
The issue isn't that, we know 9/11 was terrorism. The issue is 9/11 and Iraq, which has been shown, time and time again to have had no links with those attacks. Not one reporter I saw tonight questioned that.
Yes, it is true that there may be elements of Al-Qaida in Iraq now, but that's twisted logic to justify a war after it's begun. It is essentially saying...Now that we've destabilize Iraq, it is filling with terrorists and there sympathizers, so therefore, we were justified in starting the war. It's, for lack of a better metaphor, "Strangelovian".
Prior to the war in Iraq, that country was a potential threat to the United States in an entirely (and consequently inaccurate) way. Prior to the War Iraq was largely contained, dictatorial, but stable. Now it's a mess and the President has attempted to use the mess we've made to justify the war in the first place. Oh, did ya notice that there was no mention of WMD?
The reporters I watched were all gushing at the mechanics and symbolism. "He spoke clearly" "He seemed resolute"...yes, yes but we can see that, you need to put what he's saying in context for us, but that would require you to do some homework, which is way to hard.
Geesh.
I've never been one to think the media has a biased as much as I've thought they we're incompetent. Tonight again confirmed my suspicions. Chris Mathews takes the cake. After the speech he comments.
"The President highlighted the links between terrorism and the events of 9/11".
Gee Chris, do you think the events of 9/11 may be somehow connected to terrorism? MORON
The issue isn't that, we know 9/11 was terrorism. The issue is 9/11 and Iraq, which has been shown, time and time again to have had no links with those attacks. Not one reporter I saw tonight questioned that.
Yes, it is true that there may be elements of Al-Qaida in Iraq now, but that's twisted logic to justify a war after it's begun. It is essentially saying...Now that we've destabilize Iraq, it is filling with terrorists and there sympathizers, so therefore, we were justified in starting the war. It's, for lack of a better metaphor, "Strangelovian".
Prior to the war in Iraq, that country was a potential threat to the United States in an entirely (and consequently inaccurate) way. Prior to the War Iraq was largely contained, dictatorial, but stable. Now it's a mess and the President has attempted to use the mess we've made to justify the war in the first place. Oh, did ya notice that there was no mention of WMD?
The reporters I watched were all gushing at the mechanics and symbolism. "He spoke clearly" "He seemed resolute"...yes, yes but we can see that, you need to put what he's saying in context for us, but that would require you to do some homework, which is way to hard.
Geesh.
