[Wart]

Originally Posted by jikelly

How can I stop listening to their shows from a liberal mindset? I'm a card carrying, commie, liberal, wacko.

According to revisionist history Shrub wasn't a Con Republican.

So whatever idiocy makes the Rightie label anyone or thing is Righties own idiocy which bears no resemblance to reality.

I just keep in mind that anyone NOT in RIghtes sewer is a "card carrying, commie, liberal, wacko".

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by RookieOne

So....Generalizations, Assumptions and falsehoods.....surprise surprise

Once again, I'm going to call you out to back up your assertion......in the spirit of Beck himself......Exactly what has he stated or presented that isn't true? Why is he the devil incarnate, exactly???

Easy to jump on the band wagon and denounce him, cause Obama told you to, oops, sorry, I meant his regulatory cZar and his press cZar. Obama wouldn't dirty his hands with such filth.

So....what EXACTLY has Beck (for now, let's focus on him, you brought it up) done that warrents the attacks, the smears and the vitriolic comments that the "Respectable" and "authentic" press seem to hurl his way.....including you???

As stated, Beck is a personality. He's a commentator. He is NOT a jouralist and his show is not a news program. It's pure opinion.

I'll see you your Beck and raise you an Olberman....if Beck is to be destroyed....why should Olberman be defended?

Hell......I'll trump you a Mahr and a Stewart....

Does it make it ok if they are comedians? How about if you agree with it?

Isn't the whole point of the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press to prevent the prohibition of opinions and beliefs? Regardless of weather they are accepted by all???

I've not said that much about Beck and not pointed out hus falisies before because I thought it would be tacky and you guys know he's a bit off.

Do you really want me to use him to prove my point about Fox news?

Posted via Mobile Device

[Venom351R]

The white house has started a war w/ the white house that they cannot win. Targeting a news organization never turns out good for any administration.

Did you see the Bush white house targeting olbermann and MSNBC? Nope b/c Bush was not a commi socialist like Obama and he allowed Americans to have their view points no matter what.

FOX News asks the tough questions and questions those in his administration that are fans of commies and obama does not like that thus he wants to shut them up. So much for freedom of speech.

Then again as Beck pointed out tonight the real reason they are wagging war on FOX is to distract everyone, distract everyone while in the shadows the slide through health care...oooppss ohhh gee whats that? Oh its Nationalized health care...when did that happen?

[jikelly]

Health care reform can't be stopped, but it can be watered down. And it has been.

Bush, well seeing how as I'm a card carrying rabid bush hating liberal I don't know how you'll take what I'm going to say next.

Fox news was the Bush administrations primary media outlet.

Their pundents seemed to agree with Bush a lot while many of us were told to hold our traitorous mouths shut and let our former president do whatever he wanted.

I was one of those very vocal opponents to the Iraq invasion and occupation. Anyone in the media who questioned the decider's decisions was labeled by the administration as anti american terrorists sympathizers who's dangerous rhetoric directly threatened the lives of American soldiers.

I was very angry about that. And will never forget the powerlessness I felt living under that administration and all its horrible policies those 8 years. Thank God for term limits.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Venom351R]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Fox news was the Bush administrations primary media outlet.

Ever think that was b/c he was not trying to turn the country into cuba/china and spending every single tax payer dollar and then some?

Fox liked Bush, MSNBC hated Bush. Fox hates obama, MSNBC loves obama.

Olberman = MSNBC

Beck = FOX

Want to see something that will probably make you puke kelly. Check into Becks following VS Olberman. Guarantee he has much more viewers on his show then olberman....despite the country being run by the fringe left does not mean the American public is agreeing with it.

[RookieOne]

Originally Posted by jikelly

I was one of those very vocal opponents to the Iraq invasion and occupation. Anyone in the media who questioned the decider's decisions was labeled by the administration as anti american terrorists sympathizers who's dangerous rhetoric directly threatened the lives of American soldiers.

Show me ONE instance where the Bush administration singled out a particular individual in the media, or a particular news outlet (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC) and labeled them as such.....

Your exaggerating JKelly. The previous administration did no such thing, nor did they revoke their press privileages, nor did they boycott or avoid any particular news outlet, regardless of the outlook's opinion on the administration.

Didn't happen.

Yet another scary precedence to add to the stack that is the current Administration.

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by RookieOne

Show me ONE instance where the Bush administration singled out a particular individual in the media, or a particular news outlet (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC) and labeled them as such.....

Your exaggerating JKelly. The previous administration did no such thing, nor did they revoke their press privileages, nor did they boycott or avoid any particular news outlet, regardless of the outlook's opinion on the administration.

Didn't happen..

But it HAS happened, repeatedly and frequently with Obama and his administration. Kelly's blind to this however. Obama is THE first to openly criticize, name call and otherwise attack your average, ordinary American citizens for beliieving anything other than Obama's way of thinking and his actions. Remember "Joe the Plumber"? He was about the first, there have been many, many others since. He's truly not the president for ALL the country, only for HIS followers. That's the difference between he and all other presidents before him.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Their pundents seemed to agree with Bush a lot while many of us were told to hold our traitorous mouths shut and let our former president do whatever he wanted.

really? i seem to remember that many at fox had plenty of issues with bush and they vocalized them quite often. in fact fox news continually pointed out that the bush administration was spending too much money at the time.

[fiveohwblow]

Originally Posted by jikelly

I was one of those very vocal opponents to the Iraq invasion and occupation. Anyone in the media who questioned the decider's decisions was labeled by the administration as anti american terrorists sympathizers who's dangerous rhetoric directly threatened the lives of American soldiers.

I was very angry about that. And will never forget the powerlessness I felt living under that administration and all its horrible policies those 8 years. Thank God for term limits.

Posted via Mobile Device

Am I way out of line or doesnt it take 2/3 vote of congress to wage war? Didnt prez obama vote for the initial invasion as well?

[Strype]

Originally Posted by Wart

According to revisionist history Shrub wasn't a Con Republican.

Amnesty for illegal aliens, stimulus checks, and then there's this from 2006: Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative - CBS Evening News - CBS News

or this

Proof: Bush Not True Conservative - Blogcritics Culture

Or you can even take it from Sean Hannity who used to criticize him all the time (like everyday). He was fairly conservative, but not a true conservative. People rarely fall into a single category though. The only 3 I can think of are Rush Libaugh, Nancy Pelosi, and Barak Obama.

[Strype]

Or you could keep listening to garbage like this:

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:


Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The truth is that there are 2 groups that make up the Republican party. The Libertarian and the "Conservative" you are used to. Reagan himself said that there is room for a 3rd party, but he wanted everyone to unite as Republican.

If you really want an analysis, then listen to a true Conservative:

Republicans vs. Conservatives

Republicans vs. Conservatives

The voices of those who call themselves conservative are propagandizing the airwaves. You can hear the Golfer defending high gas prices as a necessary part of the free market, that there shouldn't be an FDA to protect us from salmonella, that illegal aliens are just doing the jobs Americans won't do, and attacking the minimum wage as being anti-job. This is garbage. These people are globalist liberals masquerading as free marketers. They have taken the Golfer's Kool-Aid. And more importantly, while they may be Republicans, they are most definitely not conservatives. I've said time and time again on this program that I'm a conservative, not a Republican. There's a huge difference between the two.

* Republicans are for AIDS money to Africa. Conservatives are for aid to working American citizens.



* Republicans are for letting the free market decide that $5 a gallon gas is OK. Conservatives are for compelling foreign oil producers to increase production and reduce prices, by force if necessary.



* Republicans are for bailing out billionaire money manipulators on Wall Street while you wait in line at the hospital behind an illegal alien. Conservatives are for letting Wall Street hucksters pay for their own mistakes and sending the illegal back to Mexico.



* Republicans are for letting market forces decide if your food has fecal matter in it. Conservatives are for enforcing basic food safety standards so that Mexican farm workers can't crap in the fields and make you sick.



* Republicans think bringing in illegal aliens is an amnesty. Conservatives think brining in illegal aliens is a travesty.



* Republicans want a strong global economy. Conservatives want a country. Republicans think that child porn on the internet is freedom from government. Conservatives know that smut is a poison that must be snuffed out.

America thought Bush was a conservative. He turned out to be just a Republican. And while there are Republicans who are conservatives, too, don't let the "R" after the name fool you. Let the voter – and the listener – beware.

Lastly I'd like to point out that there is a difference between Libertarian and Conservative and Republican. They loosely believe in the same general concept, except for this:

* Republicans are capitalists who want small gov't, period.

* Conservatives want small fiscal gov't and a large social gov't, ie they want the gov't to be biblically moral. They are a throw back to the early days of this country.

* Libertarians just want the gov't out of their personal business and out of their pockets.

That last part is my take.

[jikelly]

Well I think it's going to be difficult for us to prove to the others that Fox is above reproach and MSNBC is the liberal deathsquad's mouth piece.

I've watched a bit here and there of Fox news. I've read their online articles and always come away thinking they aren't presenting all the information.

I enjoy coming on this forum and conversing with you because I hear differing viewpoints and get access to things I might have missed.

It's as if I lived on the darkside of the moon and need to hear what's on the lightside.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Strype]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Well I think it's going to be difficult for us to prove to the others that Fox is above reproach and MSNBC is the liberal deathsquad's mouth piece.

I've watched a bit here and there of Fox news. I've read their online articles and always come away thinking they aren't presenting all the information.

I enjoy coming on this forum and conversing with you because I hear differing viewpoints and get access to things I might have missed.

It's as if I lived on the darkside of the moon and need to hear what's on the lightside.

Posted via Mobile Device

Kelly its hard for me to take a stance with one Republican vs. another because the party is split and has been for a long time. Clinton is a beneficiary of this split. He would have never become president had it not been for Perot.

Check this out- You might find it interesting to see where I stand...

Gay Rights: I'm libertarian. I could care less what color you are or who you go to bed with.

Abortion: I'm Conservative. I do not feel that it should be legal no matter who's rights are violated. Murder is murder.

Death Penalty: I'm liberal here. Totally against it. Murder is murder. I would gladly pay higher taxes (yes I said it) to house these people the rest of their lives.

Economic Stimulis: This has been interesting. The democrats have been against it and the Obama for it. Cracks me up. Bush started stimulis and most republicans are against it. Me? It's fine as long as its in moderation.

Ear Marks: Conservative/Libertarian. I hate them.

Medicare: Only in moderation. I'm in line with the whole republican party here.

Social Security: Liberal. I don't trust it to privatization anymore. I don't like the idea because the people that need it will rely on businessmen. Either fix it or get rid of it in which case I'd be Libertarian I think. I guess I'm inbetween. We need it but not for every retired person. that was never its intent.

Separation of Church and State: Conservative as long as it's kept to a general belief in God and I hate to say this but leave Jesus out of it. Many believe in a higher power, can we not just leave it at that? The founding fathers did.

Health Care: Leave the gov't out of it! If Medicare/Medicaid and SS were fixed we'd need not worry.

Wall Street: Enforce laws to combat a monopoly. Leave the CEO's alone.

In general I am republican. I believe in God. I believe in smaller gov't and more power to states. I don't like taxation without representation. I do not believe that we should all give to government and expect them to take care of us. I do believe in a safety net, but I do NOT believe that the safety net should be an inch under the high wire because everyone will step off.

[dew22]

Originally Posted by Strype

* Conservatives want small fiscal gov't and a large social gov't, ie they want the gov't to be biblically moral.

Pretty sure I disagree with the notion that Conservatives or Christian conservatives in this case want a large social Govt.

[dew22]

Originally Posted by Strype

Separation of Church and State: Conservative as long as it's kept to a general belief in God and I hate to say this but leave Jesus out of it. Many believe in a higher power, can we not just leave it at that? The founding fathers did.

How does your view address public prayer high school graduation, govt meeting, etc. etc?

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by RookieOne

Show me ONE instance where the Bush administration singled out a particular individual in the media, or a particular news outlet (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC) and labeled them as such.....

Your exaggerating JKelly. The previous administration did no such thing, nor did they revoke their press privileages, nor did they boycott or avoid any particular news outlet, regardless of the outlook's opinion on the administration.

Didn't happen.

Yet another scary precedence to add to the stack that is the current Administration.

You kind of moved the goal post. I didn't say anything about Bush singling out a particular news organization. His administration was on the attack and looking to silence any critics of the invasion and conduct of the war. Why do you think they allowed Valery Plume to be outed?

I don't have a lot of time to get you every instance, but here is a starting point for your research.

Then, in a December 6, 2001 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the Bush administration got into the act. During his opening statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft made the broad accusation that critics of the government who disagreed with its post-9/11 policies were aiding terrorists. "We need honest, reasoned debate and not fear-mongering," he said. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

In February 2002, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was targeted for criticizing President Bush's use of the phrase "axis of evil" and saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat in doubt." In the first instance, talk show host Rush Limbaugh said, "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil," while Fox News commentator Oliver North said Daschle was "setting the ground works for our adversaries to take on American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines." And in the latter case, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., said Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country," while then-Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., added, "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field."

Several months later, Democrats began to raise questions about what President Bush and the administration knew about the Sept. 11 attacks before they took place. In a May 18, 2002 article in the Washington Post, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett quickly charged that their statements were "exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do." This sentiment was echoed by conservative commentators such as Fox News "Beltway Boys" co-host Fred Barnes, who said Democrats "looked like not a loyal opposition but a disloyal opposition."

Spinsanity - Demagoguery emboldened: Attacks on dissent since 9/11

"The enemy hears a big debate in the United States, and they have to wonder: 'Maybe all we have to do is wait and we'll win. We can't win militarily.' They know that. The battle is here in the United States."—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Fox News Sunday, November 20, 2005. [8]

Embolden the terrorists - SourceWatch

[RookieOne]

Originally Posted by jikelly

You kind of moved the goal post. I didn't say anything about Bush singling out a particular news organization. His administration was on the attack and looking to silence any critics of the invasion and conduct of the war. Why do you think they allowed Valery Plume to be outed?

I don't have a lot of time to get you every instance, but here is a starting point for your research.


Spinsanity - Demagoguery emboldened: Attacks on dissent since 9/11


Embolden the terrorists - SourceWatch

Moving the goal posts???? Surely you jest.

I quite simply stated, that the Bush Administration never singled out a particular news outlet and attacked them. The Bush Administration never boycotted a particular news outlet, nor called them "not a news outlet".

The Obama Administration has...and continues to do so. Hell, the Obama Administration has boasted that it "Controls" the media.

You stated :

Anyone in the media who questioned the decider's decisions was labeled by the administration as anti american terrorists sympathizers who's dangerous rhetoric directly threatened the lives of American soldiers.

Which just isn't true....and you still haven't show example to prove that wrong......I still can't find reference to the Bush Administration attacking the media directly....

Interesting how you justification in the last post is accounts of MEDIA attacking politicians.......

Wholly different than politicians singling out and attacking media.

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Well I think it's going to be difficult for us to prove to the others that Fox is above reproach and MSNBC is the liberal deathsquad's mouth piece.

I've watched a bit here and there of Fox news. I've read their online articles and always come away thinking they aren't presenting all the information.

I enjoy coming on this forum and conversing with you because I hear differing viewpoints and get access to things I might have missed.

It's as if I lived on the darkside of the moon and need to hear what's on the lightside.

Posted via Mobile Device

And you haven't LEARNED ONE SINGLE SOLITARY THING

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by fiveohwblow

Am I way out of line or doesnt it take 2/3 vote of congress to wage war? Didnt prez obama vote for the initial invasion as well?

Obama voted "present" just as he's doing now. Oh, wait !!!! He's not even doing that. He's too busy trying to socialize the country, get the olympics, hit his supporters up for more campaign contributions (at $30,400 a pop ) make daily flights to NYC in AF1 (what's that costing us?) and any other thing he can think of to avoid making a decision about Afghanistan (or let our guys come home from Iraq)

[bigconig]

Originally Posted by Venom351R

Ever think that was b/c he was not trying to turn the country into cuba/china and spending every single tax payer dollar and then some?

Yeah, in Cuba and China they do terrible things like tap your phone and torture people. That would never happen in dubya's America. And everyone knows the $900 billion plus for Bush's wars was all donated from his wealthy oil buddies.

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by bigconig

Yeah, in Cuba and China they do terrible things like tap your phone and torture people. That would never happen in dubya's America. And everyone knows the $900 billion plus for Bush's wars was all donated from his wealthy oil buddies.

So, Bush tapped your phone too ? Your's and Kelly's. You must both have been communicating with Obama Bin Laden ? And how about that 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS Obama's spent in the past NINE MONTHS ? And what did WE get for it ? Sure as **** wasn't any jobs ! At least with the 900 billion Bush spent, we got some JOBS in return.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

And how about that 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS Obama's spent in the past NINE MONTHS ? And what did WE get for it ? Sure as **** wasn't any jobs ! At least with the 900 billion Bush spent, we got some JOBS in return.

Incorrect.. In another link I posted screen shots from the govt site that clearly shows 3 states getting under 30 jobs a piece.

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Incorrect.. In another link I posted screen shots from the govt site that clearly shows 3 states getting under 30 jobs a piece.

Totally slipped my mind !!!! 1.3 trillion for 1500 jobs. WHAT A DEAL !!!!!!

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

And you haven't LEARNED ONE SINGLE SOLITARY THING

Oh, I've learned a lot. I'm just struggling with your refusal to accept the truth.

You're telling me the Bush White House was open and respectful to all media outlets, and journalists, right?

WRONG!!!!!!!

The Bush administration worked hard to prevent the press from factually reporting on their activities. They were ultra secretive and saw the press as the enemy. How could they not, they were trying to spin everything and control what people in the country thought about every topic. Why do you think that Donald Rumsfeld consistently portrayed critics of the war as weak minded liberals and terrorists sympathizers?

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease “a new type of fascism.”

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral or intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

Rumsfeld: War critics appease ?fascism? - Politics- msnbc.com

Anyway, back to the topic. Do you recall the following?

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 5, 2006

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws...

Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and that they have worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.

"There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors," said New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a statement responding to questions from The Washington Post. "I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad."

White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks - washingtonpost.com

Seems the Bush admin had a serious problem with the press reporting on their illegal activities and they singled out the NYT and targeted them in an investigation that was meant to silence all news organizations and stop them from doing their job.

Bush's War on the Press
By Eric Alterman
April 21, 2005

But the White House and its supporters are doing more than just talking trash--when they talk at all. They are taking aggressive action: preventing journalists from doing their job by withholding routine information; deliberately releasing deceptive information on a regular basis; bribing friendly journalists to report the news in a favorable context; producing their own "news reports" and distributing these free of charge to resource-starved broadcasters; creating and crediting their own political activists as "journalists" working for partisan operations masquerading as news organizations. In addition, an Administration-appointed special prosecutor, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, is now threatening two journalists with jail for refusing to disclose the nature of conversations they had regarding stories they never wrote, opening up a new frontier of potential prosecution. All this has come in the wake of a decades-long effort by the right and its corporate allies to subvert journalists' ability to report fairly on power and its abuse by attaching the label "liberal bias" to even the most routine forms of information gathering and reportage (for a transparent example in today's papers, see under "DeLay, Tom"). Some of these tactics have been used by previous administrations too, but the Bush team and its supporters have invested in and deployed them to a degree that marks a categorical shift from the past.

Bush's War on the Press

Until this point, the conflict had been mostly a one-sided affair, with Fox News hosts promoting tax day “tea parties” that focused protest on the new president, and more recently bringing down the presidential adviser Van Jones through rugged coverage that caught the administration, and other news organizations, off guard. During the health care debate, Fox News has put a megaphone to opponents, some of whom have advanced far-fetched theories about the impact of reform. And even farther out on the edge, the network’s most visible star of the moment, Glenn Beck, has said the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/we...dcarr.html?hpw

John Cole itemizes just some of the measures adopted by the Bush White House to manipulate, control, punish and bully the very few media outlets which were ever hostile to it -- each of those Bush measures, standing alone, is infinitely more invasive and threatening than the mild and perfectly appropriate criticisms of Fox coming from the Obama White House. Indeed, the Bush White House did exactly the same thing with NBC as the Obama White House is doing with Fox, and virtually all of the media stars who today are so righteously lamenting the "attacks on Fox" said nothing. Worse, the very same Bush official who this week said it was "like what dictators do" for the Obama White House to criticize Fox -- Dana Perino -- herself stood at the White House podium a mere two years ago and did exactly that to NBC News.

But the Bush administration did far worse to media outlets than merely criticize them. They explicitly threatened to prosecute New York Times journalists -- to criminally prosecute them -- for reporting on Bush's illegal spying program aimed at American citizens. They imprisoned numerous foreign journalists covering their various wars. The administration's obsessive and unprecedented secrecy -- Dick Cheney refused to disclose even the most basic information about his whereabouts, his meetings, or even the number of staff members he had -- was the ultimate form of media control. And what was the Pentagon's embedding process other than an attempt to control media coverage and ensure favorable reporting? One will search in vain for much media protests about any of that.

What 'Controlling the Media' Really Means | CommonDreams.org

A few quick things:

1.) Fox is not a news organization. Period.

2.) Fox news helped to organize and promote partisan political rallies, including situations in which their producers were caught rallying the crowds and their rabble was shouting down and ACTUALLY intimidating reporters from other networks.

3.) Fox is not a news organization. Period.

4.) Peter Wehner worked for the Bush administration. The Bush administration, in eight years, conducted more abuses to the field of journalism than anyone I can recall. A partial recollection of the Bush administration’s wrongdoings include:

-Paying Armstrong Williams, Michael McManus, and Maggie Gallagher and others for favorable opinions about WH policies or to attack opponents of the WH.

-Planting Jeff Gannon to lob softball questions.

-Used reporters to out a CIA agent, then sat by and watched reporters go to jail to protect their sources.

-Fed reporters misinformation about WMD in Iraq, then used those reporters stories as corroborating evidence of the existence of WMD in Iraq.

-treated Helen Thomas like a leper.

-waged a coordinated campaign against NBC.

-kicked all the NY Times reporters off of their planes.

-the Pentagon Pundit program, which sold the war by planting former military officers on networks. Uncovering this story earned a journalist the ****ing Pulitzer.

-Staged mock press conferences with FEMA employees pretending to be reporters.

-allowed Ari Fleischer to tell everyone (but directed at journalists) they needed to “watch what they say and what they do.”

And that is simply off the top of my head, and god only knows what lies and abuses Peter Wehner was responsible for while working at the Bush era Office of Strategic Initiatives. By comparison, the Obama White House has merely stated the obvious, which is that the Fox news is not a news organization.

I’m thinking Peter Wehner can just stfu.

Balloon Juice Blog Archive The Neocon Fainting Couch

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by Strype

In general I am republican. I believe in God. I believe in smaller gov't and more power to states. I don't like taxation without representation. I do not believe that we should all give to government and expect them to take care of us. I do believe in a safety net, but I do NOT believe that the safety net should be an inch under the high wire because everyone will step off.

Thank you for sharing that Strype. I've got to go get to work, but I'll let you know where I stand on those things when I get some time.