Say Anything Blog

In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.

Where is the NYT’s lie? Rumsfeld offers a range of options, many to be used together, and the Times reports the options. Where or what is the lie?

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

The lie is that he did not attempt to implement any of these changes, thus being fired by W, as is implied in the article. I really thought you a bit quicker on the uptake than this, Mike.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2H9...If you are right then I’d have to own the secret decoder ring to catch that since a plain reading of the Times article doesn’t suggest any such attempt was made.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Mike, let me see if I can break this down for you.

The problem I have with the New York Times is often not the facts that are presented, but the spin that is given to them.  As a reader I often carry away a very different sense of what the document means, it’s motivations etc. than I would get by a straightforward reading of the document.

To be more specific, here’s the lede from the article:

Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction

Exactly where does the document say “the strategy isn’t working”?  That’s a classic MSM gut-punch designed to generate a particular visceral response (namely, “panic!!!"), while being a distortion of what Rumsfeld actually said:

Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.

A more honest assessment of this statement is that adjustments are needed, but because the current strategy is less than optimal and needs adjustment.  Given a complex evolving theatre like Iraq, is it really a surprise that the strategy needs to be tuned over time?

So yes, the paper lied.  It mischaracterized for political purposes one of the chief elements of the memo.  As usual, the New York Times is using a leaked classified document to trying and undercut the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.  And you would have to be reading the newspaper with your eyes closed if you thought otherwise.

Carrick: Yes.  “Not working” indicates “not working at all”, instead of what he actually said, which was that things could be better.  The NYT lied, as usual.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

What Rumsfeld said in his memo

In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.

What the NYT said Rumsfeld said in his article

Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.

When you read through his recommendations then you should realise that Rumsfeld is not talking about tinkering or tweaking but about making a “major adjustment” to the current approach. No, it’s not an about face or a hard reversal but then the Times didn’t claim that it was. If you believe that the Times is lying then what should I conclude about your account of the Times article?

I’ve never counted you as a member of the tinfoil hat set but you’ve surely taken a turn in that direction with this post. The facts just don’t support you this time.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Going to have to call your bullshit on this one, Mike.

Point to me where Rumsfeld acknowledges that the current strategy is not working and I will concede the point.  But you can’t because he leaves the current strategy as one of the possible alternatives (albeit less than attractive).  So the facts of the Rumsfeld memo exactly line up with my characterizations regardless of how you would like to spin them.

As to tin foil time… If you think the New York Times is a neutral paper you really have been reading it with your eye’s closed.  Hell, even the New York Time Public Editor admitted as much.

I don’t live in a fantasy world where people’s personal beliefs don’t affect their objectivity.  That doesn’t make me a tinfoil-hat candidate.  Nor do I live in a fantasy world where I don’t believe that the New York Times pushes an openly liberal agenda.  It is obvious to any causal reader that they do.

[Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction

Why in God’s green earth is the NY Slims still releasing classified documents to the viewing public. Some one’s head needs to roll. I am surprise that Rove isn’t being blamed for this.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Rumfeld said in his memo

Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.

If you are taking the position that “not working well enough or fast enough” does not mean that the current strategy is not working then I will drop the matter although I will do so while muttering “what does is mean?” under my breath. I have seen examples of media reporting where bias could be legitimately and honestly claimed but this isn’t one of them...hence my tinfoil reference.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA: To me, it clearly means that it could be better, then suggestions are offered.  What is so sinister or significant about that?  The NYT is trying to play this one against the President, when it seems to show just the opposite, that he is open to suggestion.
BTW, what does “classified memo” mean to you?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108...I don’t see anything sinister in particular but I do find Carrick’s characterisation of the article as a lie problematic...particularly in view of the fact that the memo is readily available to assess the Times’ description of it. You’re entitled to your interpretation of Rumsfeld’s words as well but I don’t see how you can find the Times at fault based on the available facts.

As for the “classified memo”, I believe it means that it is intended to be secret but I have no desire to discuss that subject here.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA: My point about the classified status of the memo is that it’s not verifiable with a hard copy, if it’s truly classified.  That means we have to trust the NYT to have published it truthfully and completely, and I’m not inclined to do that.  They have lied too many times, and besides, this is all too convenient for their anti-President, anti-Iraq agenda, not to mention the spinning they are doing.  Some food for thought.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

MikeA: The other aspect of all this that I find entertaining is that the NYT, after savaging Rumsfeld for years, criticizing every aspect of how he did his job, is now touting him as a reliable and credible source, since they can claim that he is speaking something they can spin to fit their agenda.  Hypocritical, to say the least.  He isn’t credible when he supports the President, but he is credible when he seems not to?  Sure!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108...I think the news value here is that Rumsfeld is on record as finally recognising that the Iraq mission is not going to succeed unless the course is shifted. It’s tough to question the credibility of the Rumsfeld memo given that its veracity has been confirmed by the Pentagon but I certainly enjoy reading your take on the situation.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeAdamson:

Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.

Let’s see Mike, is this the same thing as:

Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working

Dropping “well enough or fast enough” completely changes the meaning from “needs work” to “this policy is crashing into the floor”.  That is a common trick that politicians, journalists, lawyers and even salespeople do to spin a story in the desired direction.  Note that they make sure to put the big lie at the top, so that you are sure to carry away the desired message, even if you don’t read the rest of the article.

You also brought up the idea that what Rumsfeld was proposing was wholesale changes, which would suggest that he agreed that the current policy had tanked.  But in fact, most of his “above the line” ideas are no such thing: They are more of a refocusing the effort towards those parts that would have the best chancing of working.  How is adjusting the effort level between a number of existing programs somehow imply a repudiation of those programs?

Take for instance increasing the number of military advisors.  How does increasing military advisors somehow work out to be a complete condemnation of the current policy.

Realistically, how much of a pattern of distortion of facts (from their distortion of the monitoring of international calls, to the international fiance system and even the recent memo on Iraq) before you’ll accept that these distortions are being done deliberately?

And if it’s a distortion of the truth that is deliberately done...well Mike that’s a “lie”. As simple as that.

Personally I have no problem with the notion that the New York Times would be pushing a liberal agenda..  And of course that includes spinning the facts to further their liberal agenda.  It’s a reality that everybody has an agenda, and that obviously includes the journalists and editors at the New York Times.... 

My problem is we are at war here, so petty politics should be set aside.  But they are not.  The liberal media is completely unable to honestly address any issue with Iraq, preferring to cast everything in the most negative possible light.

And frankly that just sucks.

Apparently I’m not the only one who reads things this way.  Here’s another excerpt from the Powerlineblog:

Oh so predictably, the Washington Post tries to use Donald Rumsfeld’s classified memo on Iraq as a weapon against the Bush administration. And, just as predictably, the use of the memo for that purpose signals Rumsfeld transformation from chief villian to respectable analyst.

The Post offers several “takes” on the memo, all of which are designed to cast the administration in a bad light and all of which are wide of the mark. Its first take is that the revelation of the memo will undercut any attempt by President Bush to defend anything like a “stay the course” policy in Iraq. The Post relies here on Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution who says that “when you have the main architect of Bush’s policy saying it’s failing, that puts a lot more pressure on Bush.” But Rumsfeld didn’t say current policy failing; he said only that the policy “is not working well enough or fast enough.” President Bush has said the same thing, so there’s no added pressure.

I think the news value here is that Rumsfeld is on record as finally recognising that the Iraq mission is not going to succeed unless the course is shifted.

Two things: Why wasn’t there any “news value” when Rumsfeld was supporting the President?(this is another way of pointing out what I pointed out in my last comment, btw).
And, I think you are overstating what he actually said; it’s isn’t that “the Iraq mission isn’t going to succeed”; It is a recommendation for having it be more successful.  I guess it depends on what you want to believe, then.  You want to believe that the terrorists can defeat us in the field, and I think that’s absolutely ridiculous.  The terrorists have admitted that the Dem election victory was also a victory for them, which tells you how they think they are going to win, and it’s not in the field, as a result of military action.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Carrick: You see, the NYT’s spin has had the desired effect: MikeA has already concluded that Rumsfeld was predicting defeat.  Remarkable!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Well, I’m sure to Mike it’s a big “duh!” that the current policy is not working.  Given that presupposition, the tendency is there to look for affirmation in statements made by others.

I just disagree that this document says what he would like it to say. 

I think the current strategy would work, albeit it is needlessly “messy” (if you count a policy that results in hundreds of civilian deaths per week)]—as long as we didn’t precipitously withdraw of course.

I think that Rumsfeld is saying that the current policy needs a major work over.  And some of the corrections that he suggests in fact point to problems with his previous decisions. Decisions that I and many others have previously criticized him for.

I have no problem with honest assessments.  That’s just not what we’re getting here from the NYT, IMO.

MikeA: One more thing; even if you believe that the NYT’s “classified memo” is completely accurate and accurately complete, it is only one of a very large number of memos Rumsfeld undoubtedly wrote about Iraq; why just reveal this one?  I’m sure you don’t want to be quoted out of context, either.  Why do you approve of it this time?  I don’t even buy that anything the NYT prints is either true or accurate, but this “memo” was obviously selected(or faked) to put out a hit on the President and his efforts to defeat the terrorists.  Other memos that can’t be spun that way simply have gone unreported.  If you are gullible enough, I guess you can believe that this memo, out of all the memos Rumsfeld wrote about the war, is the only one they could get their hands on, but I’m not that gullible.  Of course, if they put it in context, it might not advance their agenda.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Carrick...I’m sorry but there is no practical difference to my mind between the two phraseologies. I will grant that the differences can lead to different interpretations when studying them semantically but what the words mean in terms of the action to be taken in Iraq is clear to me: the present course is not working to our satisfaction and here are some suggested changes. If you feel that “not working” is practically different than “not working well or fast enough” then I must releuctantly raise the spectre of Clintonian parsing. I don’t disagree with your analysis of the suggestions which is why I indicated that it’s not an abrupt or noticeable about face but I do disagree with your characterisation of the Times article, an article which fairly characterises and summarises Rumsfeld’s memo....IMO of course.

r108 asks

Why wasn’t there any “news value” when Rumsfeld was supporting the President?

There was...there have been numerous stories around Rumsfeld’s “the mission is progressing fine” stance. Yopu can check a video clip of almost any press conference he’s held since the invasion to confirm that fact.

r108 also said

I don’t even buy that anything the NYT prints is either true or accurate, but this “memo” was obviously selected(or faked) to put out a hit on the President and his efforts to defeat the terrorists.  Other memos that can’t be spun that way simply have gone unreported.

I won’t question your opinion of the NYT because you have made it quite plainly but I do take issue with your notion that the reporting of the memo was designed to attack the President. As I’ve said already, the memo indicates the first significant change in Rumsfeld’s attitude to the current approach to Iraq to which the public has become privy and that’s why it is of interest...not to mention the suggestions themselves are surely deserving of scrutiny and discussion. I think you’re making a mountain out of a flat piece of ground IMO.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA: Two points:

One: My comment about “news value” was about the positive attitude toward Rumsfeld now, since he has “taken a stance opposing the President"(if you accept that spin), where before, his “news value” was to receive a thorough bashing from the MSM. I also can’t ignore the fact that he is gone from office, and so his suggestions, no matter whether he actually made them or not, are meaningless, except for propaganda purposes. Rumsfeld is no longer deciding policy, is he?

Two: You “whiffed"(that’s a baseball term) on my other point.  It was that there are probably hundreds of Rumsfeld memos on the war in Iraq, but only this one has been “revealed”.  Why is that?  Would you like to be characterized on the basis of one memo?  Why not publish all his memos?  I believe that is due to the fact that only the memo which serves the agenda of the NYT is considered worth revealing.  The entire arc of his memos on the war might yield an entirely different impression, and that apparently isn’t wanted.  I’m sure if he had written ten such memos, we would be hearing about them all, but we only have the one.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The old network news shows together have about 20 times the influence as FoxNews. 

Of course to liberals that’s an unfair advantage for the right.

Robert’s right that Foxnews does present some conservative news, but you get the leftie side too.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

r108 said

My comment about “news value” was about the positive attitude toward Rumsfeld now, since he has “taken a stance opposing the President"(if you accept that spin), where before, his “news value” was to receive a thorough bashing from the MSM.

I’m only speaking for myself when I talk of the news value or newsworthiness of the memo and I can assure you that the memo has not changed my opinion of Rumsfeld nor do I see his stance as opposing that of the President. Anyone who advocates the position you are describing, that Rumsfeld has turned on Bush or that he’s a good guy after all, is just as wrong as those who cry foul over the Times article. Both positions are reading stuff that just wasn’t printed in the paper and anyone who takes the time to honestly read the article and honestly read the memo would be inclined to agree I think.

As for my whiffing on your other point, I’ll concede if you like as I’m just not interested in discussing it. My interest lay in the fact that Rumsfeld’s position as publicly known has changed...it doesn’t make any difference to the situation on the ground that I can see since he’s on his way out as Secretary.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA: The basis for your belief that “Rumsfeld’s position...has changed...” is based on the reported content of this single memo, right?  What if there are another 99 memos that can’t be spun this way; would that change your belief at all?  That was my point.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108...I do understand. What I am saying is that this is the first public indication that Rumsfeld has changed his view. There could very well be 99 other memos that indicate a “stay the course” attitude just as there could be 99 other memos indicating that his private view changed years ago. I am commenting on the newsworthiness of the change in his publicly available utterances...that and the mischaracterisation of the Times article. Those really are my only points.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA: Exactly; so, why is it “public”?  That is the essence of my question, to which you still have not supplied an answer, or even a guess.  Why this memo, and why now?  The only “newsworthiness” here, I submit, is that it can be spun in a way to bash the President and our effort to secure victory against terrorism.  Otherwise, the leaking of this memo(if that is truly what it is) serves no one but the America-hating lefties in the MSM and elsewhere.  It certainly isn’t helping US interests.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The only “newsworthiness” here, I submit, is
that it can be spun in a way to bash the President and our effort to secure
victory against terrorism.

That is your opinion...mine is that the memo is newsworthy because it is the first public indication that Rumsfeld is not stuck in a “stay the course” mode. I think that is the reason the memo was made public...it’s certainly the simplest explanation. If I thought that the NYT had ulterior motives then I might subscribe to your explanation but I don’t so I don’t.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

So Mike does that mean you think better of Mr. Rumsfeld?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

MikeA: Welcome to fantasyland, if you don’t know that the NYT has a well-established anti-administration agenda.  Having said that, your spin is just wrong; Reading the purported memo only reveals that Rumsfeld wanted to do a better job at staying the course toward victory.  You don’t make recommendations for improvement if you are admitting defeat.  That seems obvious to me.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

MikeA: I do agree with you on one thing: The NYT doesn’t have “ulterior” motives; they are right out there in plain sight…

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108...I must be striking close to the mark or else you wouldn’t feel the need for the personal attack.

Fantasyland indeed and I reject you personalising my opinion as “spin”...another low blow and so uncalled for. Reject my opinion as ill founded if you want but let’s keep the personalities out of it please.

As for Rumsfeld admitting defeat, I certainly didn’t say it nor did the Times so you can toss that one out with the rest of the straw.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

TW...my opinion of Mr. R hasn’t changed. I am glad to see that he does have some grasp of the real situation in Iraq but I suspect that his proposals are a day late and a dollar short...I’ve always wanted to use that line BTW.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I find it interesting that the lefties were convinced that Rumsfeld (and the rest of the administration) have been convinced that Rummy was set in stone.  Turns out Rumsfeld and I’m sure the rest of the administration have been looking at different strategy and tactics all along.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

TW...that is a very good point. It certainly would have taken a common arguing point away from the antiwar side if the Administration had demonstrated more confidence in its position. A posture which radiates inflexibility and swagger is often papering over self doubts and indecision. The easiest course is always straight ahead no matter what.

I don’t doubt that the internal discussions are quite different than the stuff that the public sees and hears...I certainly hope it is anyway.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Mike, I’m sure that debating in the press is the last thing you want to do.  No matter what you’re going to look bad.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Fantasyland indeed and I reject you personalising my opinion as “spin”...another low blow and so uncalled for. Reject my opinion as ill founded if you want but let’s keep the personalities out of it please.

Sorry, Mike, but you are simply being hypersensitive.  I didn’t attack you at all, never speaking to your personality, just your ideas, which should be fair game here.  The NYT has made no secret of its animus toward the Bush Administration and the war; that’s a well-known fact, yet you claim to be unconvinced that they have any “ulterior motive”.  I agreed with you, in that their motive is plain for all to see.  You got offended at that?
After this little distraction, then, nothing has changed.  You are still mischaracterizing, IMO, this cherry-picked memo, and are still using it to imply that we are being defeated in Iraq.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.
As far as the Administration “demonstrating more confidence in its position”, how much more confident can you get?  The President hasn’t changed his basic position since 9/11.  We defeat the terrorists.  You seem to want to take one memo and make it into all sorts of things that it doesn’t say at all, which, to me, demonstrates exactly why it is exclusively about propaganda; the memo and its release, that is.  It’s certainly not for the benefit of the American people; lies rarely benefit anyone but the liar, and I mean the NYT here, in case you try to make that into a personal attack on you.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108 asks

I agreed with you, in that their motive is plain for all to see.  You got offended at that?

Of course not...perhaps you should read what I wote again. At any rate, I accept your word that your personal slight towards me was inadvertent and I remain unconvinced that the Times’ account of Rumsfelds’ memo should be construed as part of an attack on your president and as evidence of some partisan agenda. I’m surprised that you have chosen such an easily checked item on which to hang your hat but that is surely your right.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA: I didn’t slight you personally in any way.  I simply was amazed that someone would be unaware of the NYT’s anti-Bush and antiwar positions.  They have made no secret of them.  They justify them, of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are against this Administration. They have justified every single one of their violations of national security by saying that the President is doing bad things(I euphemize here), and that the public has a right to know about them.  Their position is that the President is bad for the country, and that they, the NYT, are doing us a favor by revealing this classified info.  It’s always “the people’s right to know”, or at least their version of events, at any rate.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r, It is not that Mike is unaware of the MSMs anti-Bush, anti-America stance. It is that he is complete agreement and accord with those ideologies.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

r108 said

I didn’t slight you personally in any way.  I simply was amazed that
someone would be unaware of the NYT’s anti-Bush and antiwar positions.

For someone who takes such umbrage at the imagined personal attacks on yourself you have a lot of nerve. As for the Times and Bush, I can only assume that your convenient conception of personalising issues extends also the media. The NYT dislikes a Bush policy so it must hate Bush. The media criticises Bush’s policies and actions so the media must be out to get Bush. The NYT is anti-Bush because it is critical of the policy in Iraq, never mind that they were faithful messengers of the WMD nonsense and that it helped the Administration make its case for war.

I respect your position on the media because its honestly held but its still quite wrong in my opinion. Many decriers of media bias just plain don’t like the fact that the media doesn’t agree with their position...where were the complaints of bias in the days when virtually every mainstream media outlet was blindly supporting the invasion of Iraq? I’m sorry but its laughable.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA:

there is no practical difference to my mind between the two phraseologies

I suggest not trying that with your boss.  “Our strategies for the last year have completely tanked and we are going to have to completely change what we’re doing next year” would probably be met differently than “the strategy we are using is not as effective as it could be, and we suggest the following shift in which projects we are emphasizing this year.”

You sure are working overtime as an apologist on this one.  The clever shift in phrase by the NYT had the desired effect, was clearly deliberate and completely changes the emphasis and focus of the memo.  That’s just bloody obvious and I don’t know why you’re pretending otherwise.

never mind that they were faithful messengers of the WMD nonsense and that it helped the Administration make its case for war.

The Iraq WMD meme started in 1998 (and in support of Clinton), and not 2001, so exactly how that proves your point is beyond me… Just more evidence that you’re being irrational here.

For someone who takes such umbrage at the imagined personal attacks on yourself you have a lot of nerve. As for the Times and Bush, I can only
assume that your convenient conception of personalising issues extends also the media. The NYT dislikes a Bush policy so it must hate Bush. The media criticises Bush’s policies and actions so the media must be out to get Bush. The NYT is anti-Bush because it is critical of the policy in Iraq,never mind that they were faithful messengers of the WMD nonsense and that it helped the Administration make its case for war.

I respect your position on the media because its honestly held but its still quite wrong in my opinion. Many decriers of media bias just plain don’t
like the fact that the media doesn’t agree with their position...where were the complaints of bias in the days when virtually every mainstream media outlet was blindly supporting the invasion of Iraq? I’m sorry but its laughable.

Look, Mike, the last time I actually wrote something to you that could have been a personal attack, I apologized, completely and sincerely.  I am still waiting for any apology from you for your numerous attacks on me.
The reports of WMD are not “nonsense”; ask the Kurds, for instance.  You are just plain wrong there.  It is convenient for your agenda to hold that belief, however.
It is a fact that in the year leading up to this last election, and in the year leading up to the election in ‘04, the stories on the President and his administration in the MSM were overwhelmingly negative, while the news stories in the MSM on the Dems were overwhelmingly positive.  I guess you think that is just a coincidence, but it’s obvious media bias.  That bias has been demonstrated so many times that you must truly be in fantasyland if you are unaware of it.  I think the lefties in this country are wedded to the short term goal of acquiring political power at any cost, including our national interests.  To this end, they have lied about the economy, lied about the President, revealed classified information that is harmful to our national security, and continue to lie about events in Iraq, both by commission and by omission. Almost everything they said about the events of Katrina later turned out to be false.  All of this is calculated to damage the President and his administration. As the facts continue to come out, even you might realize it.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108...this will be the last word from me on this thread as I’ve worn out my welcome.  If you look at liberal blogs such as firedoglake or Eschaton you will find post after post detailing examples of the media supposedly showing anti-liberal bias. I don’t find their arguments particularly more convincing than your arguments...they tend to talk about bias through suppression or ommission rather than the type of bias you complain about but the fact remains that partisan believers, like partisan football fans, will never be happy with the media’s portrayal of their cause/team. Carrick’s complaint about this specific Times’ article is just like the Dodgers fan who complains that the announcer on the World Series telecast is favouring the Yankees. It just isn’t there and this is honestly my last comment.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

The general meme from the lefties about “conservative” press bias is based on the concept of ownership of news corps by rich Republicans, according to them(the lefties).  There are plenty of rich lefties, mostly in the area of the communications industry(movies, TV, etc.), and they give no actual facts on how many of the owners of news corps are actually registered Republicans, but the argument doesn’t hold water for a very specific reason: the actual reportage is heavily slanted, as is demonstrated by the number of stories that are critical of the President and other Republicans, vs the number of stories that are critical of Dems.  It’s really that simple, and can be easily verified.
Many MSM organs are fairly honest about their bias, like the NYT has been.  They admit that they think their function in our society is to attack and undermine this administration, for political reasons.  On the other hand, they did not take the same approach to either the Carter or Clinton administrations, so you figure it out.  I don’t work on feelings, so that accusation on your part is simply untrue.  I think you are projecting, big time.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

MikeA, I wasn’t complaining about that particular article.  Hence, the “lies yet again” part of my title.  Nor was I conflating the New York Times with other media outlets.  I was specifying the NYT in my criticism.

Some media outlets have liberal biases (New York Times, CBS News), others are closer to centrist (Drudge, ABC News, Washington Post, Fox News), and others even pretty right winged (New York Sun, Washington Times). 

Thus, I could as easily find evidence of any kind of bias I like… because duh!  bias exists, and the bias tracks with the particular media outlet.  (Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “bias").

Everybody has beefs with the media, at some point.  But with respect to Iraq, the New York Times coverage has been horrendously bad, and by their constant mischaracterizations, has been detrimental to the United States public good.

As a Canadian, I don’t expect you to get this: After all, perhaps you see the New York Times as serving your interests by working so fervently against the interests of the White House, and that may make it harder for you to admit they aren’t being completely upfront with the form of their opposition. 

In a nut shell, there’s a difference between honest criticism and dishonest criticism.  Whether those numb-nuts at the New York Times gets it, they are not serving the greater good (including their own) with dishonest dialog of this sort.  And because the New York Times has been a conduit for leaked memos, and has been very irresponsible in how they have characterized the contents of the leaked memos, yes I have a beef with them.  Definitely.

Please read my Reader’s Blog on the subject of lies, posted today, and give me your reaction.

Well stated Carrick

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World