+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 24

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?
    December 01, 2005 07:49 PM EST

    by Mary Mostert


    In my youth in the 1930s and in World War II, back in the days when Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president of the United States, when it was announced he would be speaking on the radio, throughout this nation families gathered around the radio and listened to what he had to say. The New York Times printed what he said IN FULL in its next edition.
    Yet, it is almost impossible, it seems, for Republican George W. Bush to get the national media to even mention anything he actually says – in this so-called “information age.” If you really want to know what President Bush says – especially if it is upbeat or positive - you have to find it on the Internet.

    For example, let’s look at the coverage of the the major speech on Iraq given yesterday by President Bush at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. His main point was summed up in the following two paragraphs:

    “Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would "discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people."

    “Senator Lieberman is right. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.) “

    Now, if you have gotten this far in reading this article, you have spent approximately one minute in finding out the President’s main point. If you read the entire speech, which might take you 30 minutes, you would get a full understanding of why he said that. Or, you could actually go on the White House website and read the entire document that outlines the President’s 38 page < National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

    On the other hand, you can spend hours or days listening to or reading the opinions of others who may, or may not, have heard or read his speech but almost certainly have not read his entire National Strategy for Victory in Iraq document. For example, in an “analysis” authored by the Washington Post today entitled “An Offering of Detail But No New Substance” some how Peter Baker managed to write a lengthy article without even mentioning ANYTHING the President of the United States actually said in his speech. Baker’s first two paragraphs in “analyzing” the speech were:

    “Thirty-two months after U.S. forces invaded Iraq, President Bush's advisers concluded that his message of ‘stay the course’ has been translated by a weary American public as ‘stay forever.’ And so yesterday the president tried to reassure the nation that he has a comprehensive vision for beating the insurgency and eventually bringing U.S. troops home.
    “The message was hardly subtle as the White House posted a 35-page >‘National Strategy for Victory in Iraq’ on its Web site and hung dozens of "Plan for Victory" signs behind Bush as he addressed midshipmen in Annapolis. But it was intended to reshape the argument against critics who have been gaining traction with congressional calls to withdraw troops immediately or at least set a timetable for pulling out.”

    I could not even find a report on the President’s actual speech on ABC News’ website, although there was an article entitled, “Pace: Message of Iraq Progress Stymied” that mentioned a speech made apparently the same day by General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. President Bush’s speech was summarily dismissed in a couple of sentences:

    “Pace spoke a day after President Bush used a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., to spell out what he called his strategy for victory in Iraq.
    “Bush's plan contained no new approaches and no start date for withdrawing U.S. troops. But he indicated that by 2006, Iraqi forces will be sufficiently trained to let American troops shift to less visible and possibly less dangerous roles.”

    CNN, on the other hand, features headlines about a “poll” they apparently took, rather than the President’s speech. Their headline reads: “Poll: Most doubt Bush has plan for Iraq victory” and the first 2 paragraphs of the story reads:

    “As President Bush launched a new effort Wednesday to gain public support for the Iraq war, a new poll found most Americans do not believe he has a plan that will achieve victory.
    “But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday night also found nearly six in 10 Americans said U.S. troops should not be withdrawn from Iraq until certain goals are achieved.”

    Most of the millions of people around the world who get their news from CNN will continue to believe that you and other Americans don’t even think your president HAS a plan than can achieve victory. And, that made me go back and re-read an article in the November 30, 2005 American Thinker that was sent to me by Len, one of my readers.

    Vasko Kohlmayer, author of the article entitled “The Left’s Secret Pact: Subverting the War on Terror” puts forth the sobering thought that the media and the political left are not as innocent at the President seems to believe but are, in fact actually deliberately sabotaging the War on Terror to “give relief to the other side.”

    Whether or not they INTEND to sabotage the War on Terror, there is no doubt in my mind from reading the reports of foreign newspapers and commentators that those who want to destroy us and the political enemies of President Bush do believe they can eventually cause the Americans to “cut and run” as we did in Vietnam and the Sudan with their misinformation techniques.

  2. #2
    war_man's Avatar
    war_man is offline the gatekeeper of honesty and integrity in self
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    256

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Interesting maybe its because their all Democrats and Liberals and cant stand the truth, sounds like a reason all those honest Republicans might give... pwrone :D
    Just joking :eek:
    war_on_scam

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Aspartame Island
    Posts
    920

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Not even fox news reports things accurately on Gdub? Here is a repeat but oh well.

  4. #4
    war_man's Avatar
    war_man is offline the gatekeeper of honesty and integrity in self
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    256

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    You kill me Rawb, Very funny, you and Lex should have been comedians. I swear thats good stuff...
    war_on_scam

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?
    December 01, 2005 07:49 PM EST

    by Mary Mostert


    In my youth in the 1930s and in World War II, back in the days when Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president of the United States, when it was announced he would be speaking on the radio, throughout this nation families gathered around the radio and listened to what he had to say. The New York Times printed what he said IN FULL in its next edition.
    Yet, it is almost impossible, it seems, for Republican George W. Bush to get the national media to even mention anything he actually says – in this so-called “information age.” If you really want to know what President Bush says – especially if it is upbeat or positive - you have to find it on the Internet.

    For example, let’s look at the coverage of the the major speech on Iraq given yesterday by President Bush at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. His main point was summed up in the following two paragraphs:

    “Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would "discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people."

    “Senator Lieberman is right. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.) “

    Now, if you have gotten this far in reading this article, you have spent approximately one minute in finding out the President’s main point. If you read the entire speech, which might take you 30 minutes, you would get a full understanding of why he said that. Or, you could actually go on the White House website and read the entire document that outlines the President’s 38 page < National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

    On the other hand, you can spend hours or days listening to or reading the opinions of others who may, or may not, have heard or read his speech but almost certainly have not read his entire National Strategy for Victory in Iraq document. For example, in an “analysis” authored by the Washington Post today entitled “An Offering of Detail But No New Substance” some how Peter Baker managed to write a lengthy article without even mentioning ANYTHING the President of the United States actually said in his speech. Baker’s first two paragraphs in “analyzing” the speech were:

    “Thirty-two months after U.S. forces invaded Iraq, President Bush's advisers concluded that his message of ‘stay the course’ has been translated by a weary American public as ‘stay forever.’ And so yesterday the president tried to reassure the nation that he has a comprehensive vision for beating the insurgency and eventually bringing U.S. troops home.
    “The message was hardly subtle as the White House posted a 35-page >‘National Strategy for Victory in Iraq’ on its Web site and hung dozens of "Plan for Victory" signs behind Bush as he addressed midshipmen in Annapolis. But it was intended to reshape the argument against critics who have been gaining traction with congressional calls to withdraw troops immediately or at least set a timetable for pulling out.”

    I could not even find a report on the President’s actual speech on ABC News’ website, although there was an article entitled, “Pace: Message of Iraq Progress Stymied” that mentioned a speech made apparently the same day by General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. President Bush’s speech was summarily dismissed in a couple of sentences:

    “Pace spoke a day after President Bush used a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., to spell out what he called his strategy for victory in Iraq.
    “Bush's plan contained no new approaches and no start date for withdrawing U.S. troops. But he indicated that by 2006, Iraqi forces will be sufficiently trained to let American troops shift to less visible and possibly less dangerous roles.”

    CNN, on the other hand, features headlines about a “poll” they apparently took, rather than the President’s speech. Their headline reads: “Poll: Most doubt Bush has plan for Iraq victory” and the first 2 paragraphs of the story reads:

    “As President Bush launched a new effort Wednesday to gain public support for the Iraq war, a new poll found most Americans do not believe he has a plan that will achieve victory.
    “But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday night also found nearly six in 10 Americans said U.S. troops should not be withdrawn from Iraq until certain goals are achieved.”

    Most of the millions of people around the world who get their news from CNN will continue to believe that you and other Americans don’t even think your president HAS a plan than can achieve victory. And, that made me go back and re-read an article in the November 30, 2005 American Thinker that was sent to me by Len, one of my readers.

    Vasko Kohlmayer, author of the article entitled “The Left’s Secret Pact: Subverting the War on Terror” puts forth the sobering thought that the media and the political left are not as innocent at the President seems to believe but are, in fact actually deliberately sabotaging the War on Terror to “give relief to the other side.”

    Whether or not they INTEND to sabotage the War on Terror, there is no doubt in my mind from reading the reports of foreign newspapers and commentators that those who want to destroy us and the political enemies of President Bush do believe they can eventually cause the Americans to “cut and run” as we did in Vietnam and the Sudan with their misinformation techniques.

    by the way mr. terminology propogandist,i always wanted to ask you........what is a war on terror!?i mean i thought,as all other civilized and peaceful folk............war is terror!?!?are you promoting fear as usual!?fight fear with fear!?eye fer an eye til we all die!?how enlightening!!how freeing!!and you always seem to include the "whole" country of "us" as you put it as if we all suck up to your petty and pathetic retoric!?you a street corner hustler wanna be!?you a sheep seeker!?you a lost little girl sugar daddy rejected turned political masterbaitor!?just askin!! :eek: :p :rolleyes:

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Hi Pwrone,

    If the press will not print what the President says, all he has to do is, call a press conference, and tell what has to be told. Easy, simple, problem solved :)

    DeeDee1965

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nunya
    Posts
    996

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Hi Pwrone,

    If the press will not print what the President says, all he has to do is, call a press conference, and tell what has to be told. Easy, simple, problem solved :)

    DeeDee1965
    UHHHHH, reread your post and see if it makes any sense.

    The press won't print it so tell it to them another 25 times and watch them not print it again.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raider
    UHHHHH, reread your post and see if it makes any sense.

    The press won't print it so tell it to them another 25 times and watch them not print it again.
    maybe they need a little payola!?ask mr.delay!?oh wait!!he's incommunicado!?wonder why!? ask your doctor!!cause the worst flu you could imagine is comin like a train wreck in your direction!!it's called real love!!hehe!!and guess what!!we all get it!! :p :D :rolleyes:

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raider
    UHHHHH, reread your post and see if it makes any sense.

    The press won't print it so tell it to them another 25 times and watch them not print it again.

    Mr. Raider,

    If the President of The United States of America, has a press conference, all the television networks, cable channels, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and C-SPAN, 1 & 2, will stop programming in mid-sentence to air it. Why is that so hard to believe?

    A press conference is done on TV, not in the print media. However, a synopsis would be printed the next day, if the White House Press Office asks them to print it.

    What is nonsensical about that?

    DeeDee1965

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    DeeDee, where have you been?

    The main stream media cherry picks what they report when the president speaks. Most Americans don't listen to the presidents live speech's. They rely on the media to "sum up" what what said in a minute news broadcast or a paragraph in the paper.

    pwrone's point is not only valid, it is the norm in this country.

    .

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    DeeDee, where have you been?

    The main stream media cherry picks what they report when the president speaks. Most Americans don't listen to the presidents live speech's. They rely on the media to "sum up" what what said in a minute news broadcast or a paragraph in the paper.

    pwrone's point is not only valid, it is the norm in this country.

    .

    Hi Grim,

    What do you mean, where have I been? Is it the problem of the President that some people are lazy. He(or she) must get the information out to the people.

    Everyone acts like if regular press conferences where given, where the President SAID something, the people would not listen. Listening to lies, prevarication, and b.s. turns the lazy off. The truth, and straight forward information, would turn them on.

    Pres. Bush should try it, it is guaranteed to work.

    DeeDee1965

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Hi Grim,

    What do you mean, where have I been? Is it the problem of the President that some people are lazy. He(or she) must get the information out to the people.

    Everyone acts like if regular press conferences where given, where the President SAID something, the people would not listen. Listening to lies, prevarication, and b.s. turns the lazy off. The truth, and straight forward information, would turn them on.

    Pres. Bush should try it, it is guaranteed to work.

    DeeDee1965
    DeeDee, to sum up what you said... That is the pot calling the kettle black!

    What have we all heard the media report on daily (up until recently) for the last 6 months? The democrats claim that "Bush lied" about the intelligence on Iraq.

    Can you link me to a story in the MSM during that time that took a look at ALL the investigations that had concluded that wasn't the case and pointed out that not one investigation had proved otherwise?

    Finding a story that talked about the fact the Energy Department said the aluminum tubes weren't suited for nukes is easy, but find me a story that told you that in spite of saying that, the Energy Department's overall conclusion based on all the evidence, was that Iraq had in fact resumed their nuclear program.

    Finding a story where the democrats said they didn't get to see all the intelligence that the president did and this supports their position that "Bush lied", is also easy. Now try and find one that talked about the bi-partisan Silverman Commission's findings, which looked at the PDB's and intel that congress and the senate didn't see and determined that it was even more critical of Iraq than the NIE which they did see.

    Finding a story on the Duelfer report saying there were "No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found in Iraq" is also an easy find. Now find me one where the Duelfer report concluded that Saddam fully intended to resume his nuclear program when sanctions were lifted. Or how about Duelfer himself saying that those allegations that the intelligence was manipulated to fit what the president wanted are completely false.

    When people site the presidents approval ratings, all this is saying is how effective the main stream media has been at convincing the American people that Bush has acted inappropriately, even though he hasn't.


    So DeeDee, this isn't a matter of people being lazy, this is a matter of our media not telling both sides of the story.

    .

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Hi Grim,

    Did you read what I wrote?

    If you did, did you understand what I wrote?

    Do you know what a "press conference" is?

    Do you know that a president, any president has access to a bully pulpit? See Link

    So I will say one more time, the president can call a press conference, anytime, anywhere, and tell what has to be told.

    DeeDee1965

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Hi Grim,

    Did you read what I wrote?

    If you did, did you understand what I wrote?

    Do you know what a "press conference" is?

    Do you know that a president, any president has access to a bully pulpit? See Link

    So I will say one more time, the president can call a press conference, anytime, anywhere, and tell what has to be told.

    DeeDee1965
    I read and understood what you said DeeDee, but what makes you believe the msm will not do exactly what they have been doing for years when it comes to reporting on republican speeches?

    Did you read what I posted?

    Can you please take my questions/statements seriously and do a bit of searching. You will see that the main stream media (CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, NPR, PBS, Time, etc...) Have only presented either half the story, or gave abundantly more attention to the liberal side than the conservative side.

    thanks.

    .

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    96

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    I do not even understand this topic. If Bush calls a press conference during primetime hours on all the main channels, how in the world can any media source change his words until after he is finished. For those who see his adress live, they can only hear and see what Bush is saying. The spin does not happen until after the adress is made from both sides. And if you are not fortunate enough to have a tv, then you have to read between the spin of the adress after it happens.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Hi Grim,


    Thread Title: Why Won’t the Media Report What President Bush Actually SAYS?

    Grim, this question is easily answered, Pres. Bush calls regular press conferences and tells what needs to be told. Do you think the main stream media will not carry the press conferences of the President of he US? In others words, the president can take the bull by the horns and, tell......

    And, no I am not going to do any "research" on your post. You response with a series of stories not heavily reported by the main stream media, is not a response to the President having a bully pulpit at his (or her) disposal.

    Finally, I am taking you seriously, I am just not going to say what you want me to say. When someone asks me "where have you been," and sums up my words, taking them seriously is a difficult task, but I endeavor to maintain my composure. :p

    DeeDee1965 :)

    Thank you Tommy4887, I just read your post, and
    hope someone will answer the question. ;)

Similar Threads

  1. British Media Report On THE Topic US Media Afraid To Touch
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 11:26 AM
  2. report you won't see in western media
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2009, 12:20 PM
  3. One of those Bush articles the media did not report...
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-01-2007, 11:27 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-05-2006, 10:46 PM
  5. Polls The Media Won't Report
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-26-2005, 11:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, abc, academy, access, accomplished, acted, active, acts, administration, advisers, aff, affordable, age, allegations, america, american, announced, another, applause, approval, aren, article, ation, attacks, attention, baker, based, beating, bit, bombings, booming, bright, bringing, broadcast, bull, cable, called, calling, calls, cant, car, carry, case, chairman, chan, channel, cherry, chief, chiefs, choose, citizens, claim, completely, con, conferences, congressional, conservative, continue, corporations, country, critical, daddy, dan, dangerous, date, day, days, democrat, democrats, department, des, didn, difficult, ding, direction, dish, doc, doesn, don, don’t, door, early, easily, edition, effective, electio, ells, eme, ended, entire, evening, everyones, eye, face, false, families, fear, feature, fee, fight, find, finding, forces, foreign, forever, forward, fox, fra, franklin, friends, fully, gave, general, george, george w. bush, girl, give, good, gov, grim, ground, guaranteed, had, hand, hard, hasn, heading, heard, hey, high, his, holds, home, hose, hours, house, html, hus, imagine, ime, include, intelligence, inter, internet, investigations, invite, involved, ion, iraq, iraqi, isn, joe, join, joint, kerry, kettle, large, last, launched, lazy, liberal, liberals, lied, line, lines, lis, listen, long, los, main, mainstream, make, makes, many, maryland, mass, matter, mea, mention, millions, mind, minutes, misinformation, more, msnbc, murder, nam, nation, national, nbc, need, networks, new york times, news, nigh, night, norm, november, now, npr, nuclear, offering, office, onli, only, org, page, paper, party, pathetic, peaceful, people, person, peter, point, policies, politically, pos, position, positive, post, posted, powell, powerful, presiden, pretty, prices, prime, programming, progress, proved, public, question, questions, quote, ratings, read, real, reason, regular, released, releases, reliable, relief, reporting, republican, research, response, roles, roosevelt, roy, run, sabo, search, searching, seem, senate, sense, set, short, simple, sincere, site, solid, solved, sounds, source, speaking, speaks, speeches, spend, spent, staff, star, start, states, step, stop, stories, story, strategy, stream, street, subs, suck, suicide, suitable, sum, summary, sums, support, supports, surge, tactics, take, taking, tech, techniques, ted, tells, the new york times, the truth about, they, thought, time, times, title, today, told, trac, traction, troops, turning, ubes, uni, united, united states, url, usa, usual, vic, victory, vinci, wait, wanted, war, weak, website, wednesday, wikipedia, won, works, world, worst, wreck, write, wrong, years, yesterday, york, your, youth

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •