I work for the fucking news media. So continue talking, because the fact is that you have about as much knowledge of how the news media works, as you have about climate change – less then nothing.

The bulk of your media, is owned by the same people who wanted to put “The Path to 9/11″ in America’s class-rooms as being “This is what really happened” – yet at the same time refused to broadcast Farenheit 9/11 – at all.

The bulk of your news media, is owned by huge corporations whose primary political contributions (And I am not talking propaganda here, I am talking money) have all gone to the Republican party.

Off of your own sources, America’s media has demonstrated less press freedom then South Africa’s, and our high crime rate is nothing to be sneezed at as a factor.

Reporters are mostly Democrats. This is because reporters have to spend their entire careers reasonably well informed on politics, economcs and various other subjects. This wealth of information leads one to see quite clearly how corrupt, stupid and incompetent the Republican party is. If those who spend their entire lives reporting scandal after scandal favour a Democrat led government, maybe it is time you republicans started asking yourselves why.

And as to bias, let too much of it show – if you are not rightwing – and you get fired. It is as simple as that.

As to Bush talking to Iran? On what planet are you on?

Apparently the one where I never said Bush talked to Iran. Which one are you on?

In 2003 Iran offered Bush a treaty basically saying yes to all of his demands, save regime change. They were even willing to recognise the state of Israel, and Bush turned it down and turned the war talk up. You haven’t read about this, you haven’t seen it unless you were very alert while watching a particular debate between a general and a Muslim woman on Sky News. The General, was the one who pointed out this treaty, not the woman.

I have, in fact, read about this. And I have noted that the supposed “fax” of this proposal, which Newsweek posted, was cropped as to remove all headings and any evidence of where it was from or who it was written by. The contents of it do not look like a one-sided proposal, rather a drafting of what a diplomatic round between Iran and the US would look like, something someone at the State Department would have been tasked with drawing up.

But feel free to believe that this document was a direct offer by Iran. I’ll still wait for the actual evidence. Meanwhile, I note that the document was cropped to hide very important details. Did you notice that, or were you too busy swallowing down the angle being played on this?

Look at Fox talking about bombing Mecca. Look at the attempts at rightwing propaganda with those missiles.

And there are commenters on Think Progress from time to time talking about how the USG set up 9/11. Your point?

Look at the talk ábout the Iranian democratically elected president. The guy has the same legitimacy as Bush you know, he was elected and I have heard nothing to suggest anything funny with his election – but now we are supposed to support America in its bid to get rid of him in the name of Democracy?

Right here you lost all credibility. Are you really this, this, ignorant? You do know that Iran’s mullahs decide who is allowed to run for election, right? You do know that this is not democracy, right? Saddam Hussein was “elected” president too. He got 100% of the vote! Of course, only he was allowed on the ballot, but I guess to you that’s the same as in the US, eh?

And there I should end this rebuttal, since you have just discredited yourself completely already. But since I like being complete…

So tell me Seixon, would really be surprised if there was a third war started in Iran?

I already answered this question, “Iran is a democracy” boy. Let’s talk in 2009 and see what the deal is, OK?

Oh and one last thing Seixon, while your ass is on display.

Yeah, OK, “Iran is a democracy” tool, LOL! Mr. “I read a report about a proposal and believed it even though I haven’t seen a shred of evidence”. LOL.

The fact that there hasn’t been a war in Iran right now is due to popular pressure against it.

Well, either that or the Bush admin never wanting to. You know. Either or. Keep that mind open now.

Without those stories for the last two years Iran would have been invaded by now

Rank speculation? Check.

further there is a general feeling that Iran could call upon the Western world as allies if an invasion happened

Oh boy. Someone’s been eating their Wheaties. And by that I mean happy pills.

The fact is that you have generals threatening to resign over a proposed Iran invasion.

According to an anonymous person who heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone. Yeah. I love 4th-hand anonymous information, don’t you? Makes me all tingly. Keep BELIEVING! All ya gotta do is BELIEVE!

Generals in general, are a tactiturn bunch, getting sitting to talk is one hell of coup for a reporter.

Oh, didn’t anyone tell you that the reporter never talked to any generals? Ah, I think you need to read the article again. If you weren’t such a complete media dupe, this would be more fun, but now I just feel sorry for you.

We have multiple sources all screaming the same thing

Or the appearance thereof. Anonymous sourcing certainly is fun, isn’t it? For all the “sources”, we have exactly zero evidence, zero corroboration, zero, zero, zero. But you BELIEVE. That’s your role. You play it well.

We even have him rejecting a treaty which would have made Clinton look silly on the Middle East.

Keep BELIEVING! There was no treaty, chump. The sooner you realize it, the better. You are a Class A media dupe. You seem to believe ANYTHING, regardless how little corroboration or evidence is behind it. As long as it is in tune with what you want to believe, you suck it down raw.

You do realize this, right?

Your conspiracy theory, of the “Leftwing” media, the “Anti-Bush” media is doing this, is purely based on the fact that you, you little slimey shit, view facts as being unreliable due to their liberal bias.

Eh…. There is no conspiracy. The majority of US journalists vote Democratic. That isn’t a conspiracy. That’s reality. As for the “facts”, can you present a single shred of evidence of this “treaty”? And by “evidence”, I don’t mean 4th-hand information, otherwise known to rational people as rumors, from anonymous persons.

If only there was a named person, with documentary evidence for everyone to see, that proved any of the things you believe.

Alas, if that were the case, all the things you believe in might be true. Yet you’re stuck with 4th-hand gossip from anonymous people who sell you the same story years on end.

And you know why? Because you keep buying it.

The news business would go under if it wasn’t for eager to please dupes such as yourself.

The fact that there hasn’t been a war in Iran right now is due to popular pressure against it. Without those stories for the last two years Iran would have been invaded by now – further there is a general feeling that Iran could call upon the Western world as allies if an invasion happened.

The fact is that you have generals threatening to resign over a proposed Iran invasion. Generals in general, are a tactiturn bunch, getting sitting to talk is one hell of coup for a reporter. We have multiple sources all screaming the same thing, the same warning, we have taped recordings of Republican Congressmen suggesting a war in Iran. We have Bush saying it himself.

We even have him rejecting a treaty which would have made Clinton look silly on the Middle East.

Your conspiracy theory, of the “Leftwing” media, the “Anti-Bush” media is doing this, is purely based on the fact that you, you little slimey shit, view facts as being unreliable due to their liberal bias.

You like to whine and whinge about leftwing reporters, well lets just point something out to you here – that is the exact same whine and whinge that was employed by the Nats in South Africa. After Apartheid ended, we learned that quite a lot of what we thought was simply leftwing bias, turned out to be absolutely 100% under-reported fact.

We found out that there was one hell of a lot worse going on that wasn’t being reported because our press was colluding with the government. You are going to find that out too.

As to Bush talking to Iran? On what planet are you on? In 2003 Iran offered Bush a treaty basically saying yes to all of his demands, save regime change. They were even willing to recognise the state of Israel, and Bush turned it down and turned the war talk up. You haven’t read about this, you haven’t seen it unless you were very alert while watching a particular debate between a general and a Muslim woman on Sky News. The General, was the one who pointed out this treaty, not the woman.

Look at Fox talking about bombing Mecca. Look at the attempts at rightwing propaganda with those missiles. Look at the talk ábout the Iranian democratically elected president. The guy has the same legitimacy as Bush you know, he was elected and I have heard nothing to suggest anything funny with his election – but now we are supposed to support America in its bid to get rid of him in the name of Democracy?

And this is not something which Think Progress, which tends to avoid the Middle-East right up until it becomes unnavoidable, covered to my knowledge.

You accuse me of being partisan. Bullshit. The fact is you don’t even want to know the facts, all you want is to seig heil your fuhrer and damn the fact that the man is incompetent and likely to land America in a third war.

Face it Seixon, the only way a war in Iran could surprise anybody, is if there was some real planning behind it. Iraq’s plan doesn’t really count, it wasn’t exactly a plan so much as a fantasy.

Bush named three countries on the top of his hit list, Iraq, which he hit, Iran which he is talking about hitting, and North Korea which promptly got nuclear weapons. So far Iran tried to talk it out, they actually tried, they got rebuffed.

So tell me Seixon, would really be surprised if there was a third war started in Iran?

The risk of Bushco using NUCLEAR WEAPONS because THEY WANT TO is great. — Reality

Remember Cheney’s odd theory that the Vice President is really a fourth branch of government, so that any constraints on “the executive” don’t apply? (Josh’s scoop). It’s 100 to 1 that they’re applying that theory here — it may even have been developed for that purpose — and in a context, Iraq, where literally billions of loose cash is just floating around. No more of this “selling arms for hostages” nonsense…

Frankly, to be honest, lets look at the news for the last two years.

Let’s, because Think Progress and your peers here are not, since that history shows a constant screaming about Iran for all of those two years, with still nothing having happened yet.

Would it really, really surprise you if Iran got bombed?

As things stand right now? Yes. However, if Iran were to do something ridiculous, I doubt I would be as surprised. Depends very much on what happens.

Given Congressional speeches from the right on the issue, the president’s own statements on the issue, past performances by the Bush Administration, including Iraq, would it really surprise you, given that whole non-drama about Iranian missiles in Iraq?

Bush has been very consistent in speaking to the Iranian people, and appealing to them to change their own regime. This was not the tone he took with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In a press conference in March 2002, Bush stated quite bluntly that, yes, they were going to remove Saddam Hussein in one way or another. He has not said anything similar in regards to Iran, for very specific reasons. Iran != Iraq. I know it amazes you liberals to think that Bush understands that, but he does. The USG does. Read the Iraq Options Paper (Google it) and you can see the Bush administration thinking on Iran for yourself, in contrast to Iraq.

The only thing that really surprises me on this story is that there is actually a plan this time. In the past, the Bush has kind of avoided those at all costs, because plans imply thinking, and thinking probably gives the guy a headache.

You’re an idiot. Only takes one link to the National Security Archive to show that you are letting your partisan self get the best of your better judgment. There were plans in place for Iraq the whole time, the problem was, as you can see if you READ, they were not very good. The Pentagon gave the president a completely ludicrous war plan.

The story rings true, and the behaviour of Congress, the rightwing media, and the sheer propaganda being spread, kind of makes a whole lot of sense in light of this information.

The rightwing media? Are you kidding me? You have to be joking me. These stories on Iran are coming from anti-Bush sources, seeking to stoke anti-Bush sentiment, appealing to the “Bush is a crazy cowboy” meme that hopeless lefties like you believe like Bush believes in Christ as his savior. There is no difference in the manner which you believe these things, it has become a religion for the Left, sad to say.

So the “rightwing media” has been screaming about an imminent attack on Iran for two years, an attack that has still not happened, a story that only makes Bush look like a gun-happy crazy person.

Yeah, pull my other finger. You guys are so far gone you don’t even realize what is going on anymore.

Oh, I hear Karl Rove has been indicted. Yup. It’s going to be revealed any day now. Any day.

Frankly, to be honest, lets look at the news for the last two years.

Would it really, really surprise you if Iran got bombed? Given Congressional speeches from the right on the issue, the president’s own statements on the issue, past performances by the Bush Administration, including Iraq, would it really surprise you, given that whole non-drama about Iranian missiles in Iraq?

The only thing that really surprises me on this story is that there is actually a plan this time. In the past, the Bush has kind of avoided those at all costs, because plans imply thinking, and thinking probably gives the guy a headache.

The story rings true, and the behaviour of Congress, the rightwing media, and the sheer propaganda being spread, kind of makes a whole lot of sense in light of this information.

Bush openly admitted to having taken drugs in 2000 (His whole “I inhaled” bit.)

His wife once said said that he sexually molested a horse.

His military record, even the official one, contains not a single tour of duty in a warzone, and is incomplete besides.

The guy champions torture, dishonouring America’s contracts (In essence, oathbreaking) and uses a form of situational morality which judges morality defunct the second it is the least bit inconvenient – to justify this.

And his record on protecting the lives of Americans, includes failing to protect Americans from the worst foreign attack on American soil ever – 9/11.

So while I am sure that you think he is a good guy you can have a beer with, those of us who have actually got one iota of decency, and who have actually paid attention to what he was doing, know that you are talking out of your ass, and you have a serious case of being-an-ignorant-shit going on. Cure yourself, then come back to us.

Was not Seixon the guy who posted that Iraq´s press had more freedom under the US puppet government presenting a Reporters without borders index that actually indicated that the Iraqi press was worse than under Saddam? Or am I wrong?

Not sure if I was, but in any case, I would have been right, and would again be wrong. Here’s Iraq’s Press Freedom Index score for the last 5 years (lower is better):

Pre-invasion
2002: 79.00

Post-invasion
2003: 37.50
2004: 58.50
2005: 67.00
2006: 66.83

And you were saying? Thanks for playing.

Briseadh,

Oh, come on now. You mean to tell us that when Hersh reported this two years ago, you believed it?

No, I didn’t, because (1) it seemed like a silly idea, (2) only anonymous former intelligence officials were saying it, and (3) when Hersh doesn’t have anything concrete to show to, he’s usually full of it, or in other words, his sources are full of it. This is the plague of the modern media, the anonymous sources who lie to journalists but never get turned away because they can always claim the information was accurate.

UKBristolDave,

So your argument is that we can’t trust anyone?

Well, certainly not anonymous sources with their own agenda and no corroborating information. But then again, you probably believed Jason Leopold’s scoops too, I bet.

Virginia Legislators Vote to Apologize for Slavery (1:46 am)

Larry O’Dell for AP reports:
RICHMOND, Va. — Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express “profound regret” for the state’s role in slavery.

Sponsors of the resolution say they know of no other state that has apologized for slavery, although Missouri lawmakers are considering such a measure. The resolution does not carry the weight of law but sends an important symbolic message, supporters said.
——————————————————
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×234561

How the U.S. military would remove Bush-Cheney

There’s a term for when the military replaces its Commander-In-Chief – coup d’etat — but there are lesser practical steps that have been taken by Pentagon brass several times in modern American history to deal with Presidents viewed as incompetent to carry out their duties as CIC. Here’s how it works in practice.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed a range of options to deal with domestic political crises. These contingencies include major military or terrorist attacks, natural catastrophies, insurrections, civil disturbances, and the partial or complete cessation of civilian goverment. By far, the most difficult for the national command staff is confronting and managing the threat posed by a manifestly imcompetent or incapacitated CIC who issues launch orders without proper procedures. Under no circumstances short of actual hostilities or a confirmed threat of attack, could the military carry out launch orders committing the military to war on the sole authority of the President. George W. Bush can not just pick up the phone in the middle of the night and begin a nuclear strike. That order has to be countersigned by others within the chain of command.

The Pentagon carries out strategic planning for all possible contingencies. The staff of Joint Chiefs and the combat commands attempt to prepare reponses to all possible threats or orders they may receive. Somewhere in a locked file in the D-Ring of the Pentagon, the JCS staff have developed contingency planning for how top military commanders would respond to manifestly illegal or irresponsible orders issed by a deranged President. These responses would always involve consultation with civilian agency and Congressional leaders and range up to and include plans for the use of troops to forcible remove the President from the White House, depending upon the circumstances.

Political Containment

One doesn’t contemplate the involuntary removal of elected civilian leadership lightly. Civilian control over the military is the cornerstone of the American constitutional system, and all actions must serve that end. Therefore, the military brass will not act independently and will seek out responsible elected and appointed officials for any action prior to removal of a President. Prior to any direct intervention in the political process, Pentagon commanders would have to be convinced that all normal procedural and political options, including Impeachment or succession under the 25th Amendment, had been exhausted or were futile.

An active plan of containment by civilian political institutions is the preferred means to deal with a dangerously unstable CIC. If normal political checks and balances break down, however, then top military commanders face a series of more difficult choices that must be made in order to uphold their oaths to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution.

Removal in Place

Romoval in Place is an option to forcible removal of the incumbent from office, or may be employed as an intervening step pending the resignation or involuntary removal of the President.

Removal in place has been seen in “figurehead” presidents in the past, employed due to illness or temporary physical or mental impairment during the terms of Presidents Wilson, Nixon, and Reagan. Historically, this option has been carried out more or less informally by measures such as confinement to hospital of the President, the removal of the CIC’s access to the nuclear “football” containing launch codes, and the heavy medication and close supervision of the President by aides.

The removal in place option requires the cooperation of key figures within the White House inner-circle along with civilian agencies to effectively keep the President from exercising undesirable command decisions of consequence. The effective maintenance of this option ultimately depends upon at least the passive acquiesance of the CIC and his immediate staff and family.

This option has the advantage of maintaining the public appearance of normalcy, avoiding open conflict between civilian and military authorities, and the attendant political and economic crises that open, formal, involuntary removal would entail.

Involuntary Removal

When it becomes apparent that an incompetent or psychologically impaired President can not be countered by normal political means or contained in place, military and civilian leaders must cooperate to insure that the CIC is disconnected from the mechanisms by which he might be able to issue launch orders to the national command system.

This option is a matter of last resort exercised only when by the consensus of the Joint Chiefs, after consultation with civilian heads of agencies and Congressional leaders, that the incumbent President presents extreme danger to the national security that can not be contained by alternatives, including those outlined above. The proper procedure would then be for alternate civilian leadership within the Line of Succession to invoke the 25th Amendment declaring the incumbent President incapable of carrying out his duties. If the Vice President is also judged incapable of carrying out succession duties in a responsible manner, he too is also subject to immediate removal under the 25th Amendment.

Involuntary removal may only be considered as a last resort in the face of grave, imminent threat to national security, such as to prevent the exercise of unlawful orders committing U.S. forces to hostilities. An example of unlawful launch orders would be issuance of a preemptive nuclear strike orders against a foreign state or power that poses no realistic, imminent, and grave threat to American forces or interests. Of particular concern would a launch order issued without Congressional consultation or approval initiating a conflict that foreseeably holds a high potential for large-scale U.S. military casualties or retaliatory attacks on civilian targets within the United States that can not be effectively defended against.

Given the escalating tensions in the region, and the vital U.S. interests at stake in South Asia, the top military commanders have forcefuly articulated their positon on various options. They have opposed implementation of plans for a preemptive attack on Iran. If the President were to issue a launch order for a preemptive attack on Iran without first obtaining a Congressional resolution of war, that action — in effect, an illegal order — would require the national command authority and civilian leadership to implement plans to contravene such an order, sever the CIC’s command authority, pending the removal the President and Vice President under the 25th Amendment.

Do not be deceived by the rhetoric and sabre-rattling. The United States will not go to war with Iran just because George W. Bush or Dick Cheney order it.
——————————————————

Seixon, are you seriously admitting that you would rather not know what is happening? That you would rather have no news or facts getting in the way of you forming your opinion – because those who are delivering the facts reported a rumour which has thus far proven accurate?

Gee. What a surprise. /sarcasm

————————————————————————-

College Republicans Apology letter

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to express my sincere and deepest regret to Dean of Seaver College, Dr. David Baird, Professor Dan Caldwell, Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else who was affected by a recent Facebook message that was sent to members of the Facebook group “College Republicans.” I would also like to make clear that I was not speaking for the Pepperdine College Republicans club, but on my own. The message was careless and inexcusable and I humbly ask for forgiveness from anyone who was hurt by my words.

Specifically, I’d like to apologize for the following actions:

1. A statement about “chastising” the Dean of Seaver College, Dr. David Baird. If I had it to do over, I would have made clear that I was suggesting to our officers and members that they contact Dr. Baird and respectfully recommend speakers that share our beliefs. I now understand that my words were disrespectful to the Dean and I am very sorry.

2. My comment about making John Kerry feel “unwelcome.” Although I do not agree with Senator Kerry politically, he is entitled to respectful treatment at all times and I do not condone any kind of disruptive or disrespectful behavior. I realize now that someone could use my statement to justify improper behavior and I sincerely apologize for not choosing my words more carefully.

3. Insinuating that John Kerry is a traitor. Just because someone has a different opinion does not make them a traitor and I am sorry for using that label.

4. My use of implied profanity. I understand that this is not consistent with the Christian mission of Pepperdine University.

While I wrote a good deal of the message in a joking and non-serious manner, I realize that not everyone viewed it in the same light. I have definitely learned from this experience. It is important to always speak and act professionally and respectfully, especially in correspondence that can enter the public forum. I will not make these same mistakes again and I am truly sorry for the way I came across online.

Sincerely,

Ben Seale

Submitted 09-07-2006

Comment by The Penguin

How about you go fu*ck yourself Penguin is it?

aka Vince P. aka Michaels little buddy.