General Petraeus on Iraq

Devil5052 wrote:There are articles available to be read on any side of a debate in a free society. I guess you feel that only the Official State Sanctioned views should be available & that is the very defintion of Un-American!

Nice Spin.

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:There are articles available to be read on any side of a debate in a free society. I guess you feel that only the Official State Sanctioned views should be available & that is the very defintion of Un-American!

Nice Spin.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
Winston Churchill

Read FDR's solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_ ... Censorship

spc wrote:Read FDR's solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_ ... Censorship

This country has never claimed to be perfect & there have been mistakes made that we admit & hope to never repeat. (ie the unlawful internment of Japanese American during WWII, etc) Your pointing them out does not further your argument. Do you really believe that only state sanctioned infomation should be available to a free people? (I'm not talking about publicising troop movements during a war & that kind of thing.......You know full well what I mean)

Devil5052 wrote:

spc wrote:Read FDR's solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_ ... Censorship

This country has never claimed to be perfect & there have been mistakes made that we admit & hope to never repeat. (ie the unlawful internment of Japanese American during WWII, etc) Your pointing them out does not further your argument. Do you really believe that only state sanctioned infomation should be available to a free people? (I'm not talking about publicising troop movements during a war & that kind of thing.......You know full well what I mean)

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

WINSTON CHURCHILL

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:

spc wrote:Read FDR's solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_ ... Censorship

This country has never claimed to be perfect & there have been mistakes made that we admit & hope to never repeat. (ie the unlawful internment of Japanese American during WWII, etc) Your pointing them out does not further your argument. Do you really believe that only state sanctioned infomation should be available to a free people? (I'm not talking about publicising troop movements during a war & that kind of thing.......You know full well what I mean)

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

WINSTON CHURCHILL

Good man to quote! (we could have an entire debate just using his quotes!)

I think the point spc is trying to make is that its clearly evident the media for the most part report the negative and dwell on it quite a bit. Personally I don't think it's a political bias but they just want to make money which if they wanted to be true to journalism shouldn't be the case. The news reporters should be reporting the news whatever it may be not making. The prison story as pointed out above is a prime example, I find it astonishing that they ran that story front page for 32 consecutive days. Did they run a story 32 consecutive days about the recent success in Iraq on the front page? It's likely they didn't run that for 32 consecutive days anywhere in the paper.

The prison story should be reported but in the grand scheme of things it's a relatively minor incident. You have small group of people that were doing things that were not inline with U.S. policy. What made it such a big incident is the overblown coverage by the media which goes back to they should be reporting the news not making it.

What would FDR or Churchill have thought of the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" ad?
https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
The NYT gave Moveon.org a 50% discount for the ad. Not just money.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09 ... _move.html

Its disgusting.

spc wrote:What would FDR or Churchill have thought of the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" ad?
https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
The NYT gave Moveon.org a 50% discount for the ad. Not just money.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09 ... _move.html

Its disgusting.

They would have accepted it as a right of free speech & freedom of the press in a free society. Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Stalin would have stopped it & arrested the ad makers. Is that what you prefer? (Freedom of Speech & the press does not mean that we are free to say/print things only if they uphold the state sanctioned views.......Do they?........Would you really prefer to live in such a state?)
As a matter of fact, FDR put up with large Pro-Nazi rallies in Madison Square Garden in the 1930's. (many of which attended by Charles Lindberg) I'm sure he didn't like them either, but realized that to stop them would be totaly Un-American & unconstituional.

Richard S. wrote:I think the point spc is trying to make is that its clearly evident the media for the most part report the negative and dwell on it quite a bit. Personally I don't think it's a political bias but they just want to make money which if they wanted to be true to journalism shouldn't be the case. The news reporters should be reporting the news whatever it may be not making. The prison story as pointed out above is a prime example, I find it astonishing that they ran that story front page for 32 consecutive days. Did they run a story 32 consecutive days about the recent success in Iraq on the front page? It's likely they didn't run that for 32 consecutive days anywhere in the paper.

The prison story should be reported but in the grand scheme of things it's a relatively minor incident. You have small group of people that were doing things that were not inline with U.S. policy. What made it such a big incident is the overblown coverage by the media which goes back to they should be reporting the news not making it.

So how do you stop the media from doing these things in a free society? My view is that you simply allow all sides to have equal access to the public airwaves, newspapers, etc....& let the American voters sort it out. (the American President is not exactly defensless in this battle for the public's attention. He has a pretty big "Bully Pulpet)

Devil5052 wrote:They would have accepted it as a right of free speech & freedom of the press in a free society. Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Stalin would have stopped it & arrested the ad makers. Is that what you prefer? (Freedom of Speech & the press does not mean that we are free to say/print things only if they uphold the state sanctioned views.......Do they?........Would you really prefer to live in such a state?)

Do you think that ad would have run during ww2? Be honest. I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself.

[quote="spc"]What would FDR or Churchill have thought of the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" ad?
https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html


Another point:

General Petraeus is really bound to support this President's views if he wants to keep his job/pension. Admiral Fallon, Generals Garner & Ginsekki (sp) show what happens to employees who dare to disagree with Bush.

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:They would have accepted it as a right of free speech & freedom of the press in a free society. Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Stalin would have stopped it & arrested the ad makers. Is that what you prefer? (Freedom of Speech & the press does not mean that we are free to say/print things only if they uphold the state sanctioned views.......Do they?........Would you really prefer to live in such a state?)

Do you think that ad would have run during ww2? Be honest. I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself.

I don't think it would have run during WWII because of fear of public outrage (& thus loss of $$$$) because:
1. The public was rightly in favor of WWII
2. No Editor would have agreed with the sentiment & wanted to run it.

Fear of the "Gestapo" stepping in to stop the ad would not have been a factor. (We do live in a free country, even in time of war)

How about Michael Isikoff's Newsweek story about American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushed pages of the Koran down the toilet.

"Newsweek sparks global riots with one paragraph on Koran" people died over this story.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 522394.ece

Real journalistic responsibility.
Pathetic.

spc wrote:How about Michael Isikoff's Newsweek story about American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushed pages of the Koran down the toilet.

"Newsweek sparks global riots with one paragraph on Koran" people died over this story.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 522394.ece

Real journalistic responsibility.
Pathetic.

So what would you have us do if you were President?.....Arrest him? (I'm serious....give it a bit of thought)