Erich Esswein: A bias perspective

Advertisement

A bias perspective

Based on the article headlines I've seen in the Steamboat Today for the last couple of months, I would have to say Editor Brent Boyer is apologizing to readers for running a pro-Republican headline, not a situation of bias ("Sorting through the debate spin," Oct. 9 Steamboat Today).

He and his editorial staff overwhelmingly select articles from the Associated Press and other sources that are pro-Obama and pro-Democratic Party. We only need to review the editorials and articles in the same Oct. 9 issue that have to do with the presidential election to prove this. Of the two editorials, one refers to the presidential campaign, and it is very negative to Sarah Palin. Then there are four articles about the presidential candidates:

- Page 17, "Obama tours rural areas to win voters"

- Page 18, "Experts criticize McCain buy-up strategy"

- Page 19, "Candidates compete for voters trust"

- Page 19, "Obama rallies for North Carolina"

So there you are; three pro-Obama articles and one neutral article out of four in the same issue with a "we try not to show any bias" column by Boyer. It's this way issue after issue, with a majority of the articles having a pro-Obama and pro-Democratic slant. This is all fine, but the claim of "the Pilot & Today's commitment to providing balanced, relevant information to voters" doesn't hold up when it comes to the presidential campaigns.

Erich Esswein

Steamboat Springs

Comments

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

snowbow, All you have done in your comment is verify what Erich is saying. And that is the pro Obama media bias by this publication and 99% of all national publications. As far as your false statement about certain people leaning for Obama, that is spin on your part. Are you suggesting that "George Will, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, William Kristol, David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer " are leaning too or are rooting for Obama?

0

aichempty 6 years, 2 months ago

This is a very simple one-issue election for a lot of people. Gasoline was over $4.00 a gallon just a month ago.

McCain and Palin say "drill now."

Obama says, "We'll look at drilling."

Four years from now we can be a long way toward offsetting foreign oil dependence. Can be. The thing people do not understand in general is that you don't have to replace all of the foreign oil to bring prices down and stability to the market. The people selling oil (OPEC) depend on the income, and reducing oil imports by 5% is plenty to get them competing with each other to sell the stuff. Selling more at a lower price brings the same income as selling less at a higher price. This is called volume sales, and it's how Wal-Mart and grocery chains thrive; by selling lots of small items at low cost, and taking pennies in profit on each one. OPEC killed shale oil back in the Carter administration simply by opening the taps and lowering prices to the point that shale oil could not compete. We can pull a switcheroo on them and force the taps open by developing domestic reserves to cut into their market. We do not have to replace OPEC oil, just compete with it at the "margin" (the last dollar spent before a higher cost reduces demand).

All the media pundits mentioned above make plenty of money. They'll have gas no matter what it costs. They'll buy hybrids and electrics. They are so far out of touch with working class voters they cannot comprehend the gravity of energy costs on the lives of people who already live on the margin -- that is -- spending their last dollar every month and waiting until they get paid on Friday to fill up the tank for next week.

People doing without health insurance to pay their other bills already cannot afford Obama's health care plan. The cost of putting gas in their cars is something they see every few days, and they're going to vote for the candidate that promises relief at the pump. They don't answer polls, they don't get polled, and they don't frequent the streets in the big cities, but the country is full of them.

Everybody on TV this morning is talking like Obama is already the President. Pro-Obama media coverage only disguises the true situation. People who don't buy newspapers, don't watch "The View" and don't have money for a Happy Meal because they just spent it on gas are not being represented in the media, and they are the great unknown in the upcoming elections.

If you only watch TV and read the newspaper, you would think that all cops are geniuses, mattresses are on sale every day of the year, smart-mouthing your parents is a way of life for kids and everybody can make a living by singing and dancing. The reality is that a lot of people are going to be writing out checks for their first month of cold-weather heating bills before November 4th, and that's what the Obama campaign has overlooked.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

No, They are concerned that McCain has not hammered Obama from the start on his nefarious connections and have chosen to do so this late in the campaign. The left wing response by you and the rest who are using the Dem talking points is to attack "the direction" because it is damaging and there is evidence to support all of these accusations.

On another subject, I have thought about Biden's comments about an International crisis in Obama's first six months. He warned the people he was addressing that the response might not be good it would take time to understand so be patient. I have come to the conclusion that this statement is most likely a belief that Israel will be involved and that Obama's lack of commitment to Israel and his leanings towards the enemies of Israel is where that statement gets its fruit. I pray I am wrong and I know you will adamantly say so but this comes from Biden a day or so after both Campaigns received high intel from the security services.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Inside polling from the Obama campaign has been leaked which shows a 2 point lead for Obama in Penn.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

An hour after posting my comments on Biden a news report on it.

Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent Tags: Israel news, nuclear, Iran

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.

The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.

Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues. Advertisement Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government.

An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor.

Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said.

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.

Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.

He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action.

Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.

Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.

continued-

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.

Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race.

Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Of course the Iranians want Obama to win as stated along with the carrot to Americans that all will be happy times. Why were the Iranians so anti American while Clinton was president? Typical propaganda.

0

aichempty 6 years, 2 months ago

Polls depend on voluntary participation. The people who do not want Obama to be elected will go to the polls, because they are talking to each other at work, and guess what -- none of them have been polled. They don't trust the government in the first place because they have seen the results of social programs on pay and promotions in their jobs, and they've had enough of it.

I am from the generation that saw the civil rights movement of the 1960s on TV as school children. Equal rights seemed like a good idea, and most of us supported it because we had not been victims of reverse discrimination. My very first boss in a professional job, as a college intern in my senior year, was a black man who held degrees in Chemical Engineering and Law. Without exception, I have never had a negative experience with a minority member who was college educated and filling a career or professional position. Much of the time, I've scrambled to live up to the examples they've set.

On the other hand, there are vast cultural differences between caucasians and minorities in various pockets around the country, and an awful lot of white people who didn't go to college have had negative experiences in the workplace, with crime, and trying to run businesses in areas where poor minorities are in the majority. The opinions among many of these people are that all African Americans will automatically vote for Obama, and voting against him (not for McCain, but against Obama) is something they can do without being disciplined by their employers or getting into a hassle on the job over a race-related conflict. A secret ballot is a silver bullet to these people, and you can expect to hear what they really think on election night. Whether this group of "undecided" voters can make the difference is yet to be seen, but it cannot be measured until the votes are in.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

I think your point on secret ballots is good, but I disagree with the racial aspects of the argument as a general concept. I think it is evident that many Americans including myself would have no reservation casting a vote for a black man/woman for President. The problem I have been having with the racial or accusatory tone from those supporting Obama and quite frankly the statements from Obama himself on this subject is that it discounts most oppositional voters real reasons for voting for anyone but Obama. We don't trust him period. He is a tax and spread the wealth Liberal/socialist and with a Dem majority in both Houses of Congress along with the promise yesterday from Barney Frank(D) that we will spend and we will tax and we will ignore the deficit is a recipe for disaster. I was in my late teens while we lived under the leadership of Carter. It was the dreariest dark and gloomy time in my life other than the assassination of Kennedy. I believe under Obama we would be heading right back to that kind of economy.

So in summary we are voting on issues not race.

Another thing, This nonsense that McCain is 4 more years of Bush is bull. McCain, all during the Bush Presidency leading up to the recent Presidential primaries was considered by most to have been a thorn in the side of the GOP agendas. He reached across the aisle and was involved in numerous bills with the other side,McCain/Feingold for one. But there are many more including the group of seven. Heck, even the much hated Anne Coulter constantly pilloried him in her columns. She was going to vote for Hillary.

I was not routing for McCain early on I was for Romney but I have come to really respect the man and I am now a big fan.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Matthew, I read the Al Qaeda story this morning. Do you see what the twist is? They are hoping to sway votes towards Obama with fear. It's a similar propaganda being used in the Iranian statement.

If the Americans would only vote in Obama peace will be near. No reasons for conflict any more. Yea right!

0

aichempty 6 years, 2 months ago

I personally have no doubt that the Iranian military forces would fall before Israel's. I also have no doubt that, in a culture where Muslim men get a free pass to murder wives and daughters who violate Islamic law, nobody would think twice about dropping nuclear weapons on Israel.

Do you remember how this guy Bush declared victory in Iraq, and then lost 4000 troops in the resulting peace? Our friend Abu-etc in Iran probably has the same idea about what he and Allah can do to Israel if the United States isn't immediately prepared to respond with military force in the face of armed conflict. Everybody who doesn't understand that a single carrier battle group, augmented by B-2 bombers and U S Air Force assets already in the region can turn Iran into a smoking ruin in 48 hours, please raise your hand.

Abu-etc understands it, and that's what's keeping Iran in the bottle. Let Iran attack Israel, and you'll be paying $10 a gallon for gas if you have a place to go (a job) or money to spend.

Iran's rhetoric about a "pre-emptive strike on Israel" is more than saber rattling. What kind of "pre-emptive" strike would have such an effect that Israel would be rendered incapable of retaliation? Nuclear, of course. So where did the nukes come from? Iraq, of course, with help from North Korea, probably moved into Syria before the invasion. If the news reports are true, the Iranians are ADMITTING they have the ability to strike Israel. It's as clear as Truman's warning to the Japanese after the nuclear attacks. Do we have to wait for the second bomb to fall to be convinced?

The proposed "dialogue with the United States" if the Democratic candidate is elected would go something like, "okay, President Obama, here's the deal. Cut the Zionists loose, pull out of the Middle East, and we'll keep the oil flowing as long as you stay out of our business."

I have known Iranians personally. I served with them when Iran and the U. S. were allies. I know something about their culture. The war between Iran and Iraq is the thing we have to look at to see what we face if Iran is not contained, except that if they try that crap with Israel, Armageddon will be upon us.

To the Iranians, Barack Obama might as well be Jimmy Carter in 1979. I've been expecting this "October surprise," and here it is. A viable threat of nuclear war, and when all the details come out, it will lead back to the WMDs which were moved out of Iraq to Syria during the 30 days we lost after Turkey wouldn't allow us to invade through their territory. I just didn't expect Iran to admit they have the ability to strike Israel in an attempt to sway the results of our election. They think Americans are weak, and we will cave in. That's what the Japanese thought too, before Pearl Harbor.

John McCain flew into battle in North Vietnam. Barack Obama never stood a fire watch in boot camp. Iranians believe what they see, not what people say.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

So, the question is, "When did Obama hear Ayers saying that...in 2002 or on the news yesterday?"

The Ayers thing is the politics of fear, too. Obama has denounced what Ayers did in the past and when was the last time they were seen together? Just like, when was the the last time McCain was hanging out with Keating? McCain was cleared from that and there is no present link to Ayers by Obama, nor is there any evidence that Obama has had any influence coming from Ayers.

And just because McCain was military doesn't give him any leg up on security issues than Obama. Bush had no military background to speak of, and we've seen that in detail during 2004. If you bring up Executive experience...well, McCain has been in Congress just like Obama. McCain wasn't mayor or governor, either.

His military background is what distinguishes McCain...and he spent a good amount of his younger military career ignoring orders...being a "maverick." Someone in today's military doing those things would be reprimanded to some degree and maybe chaptered out.

McCain has said that he isn't Bush, but name one of McCain's policies that differs from Bush to make that point go away. Even McCain can't seem to do it. This is pretty funny considering McCain keeps distancing himself from Bush by voting for a bailout bill Bush wanted and McCain didn't seem to want. He says he'll cut "pork" but voted for all the pork attached to this bill. He also says no new econ stimulus bill is needed, but even Bush thinks it's possibly needed now. (Personally, I'd rather see any new stimulus dollar amount go directly to paying down the National Debt. I don't think it will help the economy since all people will do is put it to past bills, savings, etc., just like the last one.)

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

You know Matthew, some things in your post are rational and I am prepared to further discuss them. But your statements of McCain's so called insubordinations while in service are not to cool on your part. Are you maybe suggesting that he was insubordinate when he would not leave the Hanoi Hilton out of turn and ended up enduring 5.5 more years of the wonderful treatment he was receiving? And I admit I am tearing up as I write that. I love the man for his service to this great Country so when you provide your little anecdotes please back them up because you are making serious accusations that hurt.

Now, where I can quickly remember where Bush and McCain differ. 1. The Bush tax cuts after 9/11 is one and I know that won't square with McCain's current position so I am going to dig through google to find what was McCain's reasons although I know one and that is he felt lowering taxes during a costly war was irresponsible unless it would have been in concert with pork barrel spending cuts. 2. How the Iraq war was initially waged. McCain was an advocate of overwhelming force in order to control the Country and make sure it would stabilize before moving out, hence his call for the surge(and it was his call)that has turned the tide.

One thing that is lost in this phony argument about McCain and Bush though is that most Senate voting is on non issue items that most agree on. You can call it party line if you like.

The recent pork you mention was added to the bailout bill by the Dems in the Senate not McCain and the urgency to get the Bill passed before Congress quit for the year was a factor. At least because McCain suspended his campaign initially the worst part of the original Bill was discarded, THE 20% OR $140 BILLION THAT WOULD HAVE GONE TO ACORN.

That is what John McCain did, he saved us from them and their illegal fraudulent pork for the Obama campaign because we all know that ACORN is Obama.

Last thing here is the application of moneys from the package. So you want to add to the national debt and then with the same money pay down the debt? Is that what your last statement is? Or should you just say you were against the stimulus package?

0

aichempty 6 years, 2 months ago

Matthew,

George Bush was an F-106 pilot, even if he didn't attend all the meetings. You can't know what kind of skill and courage that takes unless you've walked the walk, shot the approach to minimums, taken off in zero-zero to make an intercept, and sat around discussing what your peers did wrong that led them to the fate of a smoking hole in the side of a mountain on the Nellis AFB range. His father was the youngest Naval Aviator in history, and head of the CIA. George W. Bush grew up in a military culture, and there's no doubt a lot of it rubbed off.

McCain may have disobeyed some orders. So did I. I was a Naval Aviator after Vietnam, serving with men who spent time in the Hanoi Hilton. We went out in the course of our jobs, put ourselves into life and death situations, and then saved our lives before retiring to the BOQ bar for beers. Duke Cunningham was also a contemporary, and he disgraced himself in Congress, and is now in jail.

There are good and bad performers in every profession, and realistically, John McCain proved he's got b@!!$ as well as self-control. He's not my first choice, and neither was George Bush (either one of them), but he's the one we've got on the ballot.

Barack Obama might be a great peacetime president, like Bill Clinton was except for military decisions. Clinton's failures came from worrying about the polls instead of the troops, and that's why the "Blackhawk Down" tragedy happened in Somalia. When your own life has been in danger (and if you served in the military in almost any of the combat arms, even in peacetime, you've had friends die in training accidents), it gives you a perspective that just isn't taught in an ABA accredited law schools. John McCain dropped bombs on North Vietnam, killed people in the service of the United States, and paid the price in Hanoi. He did what Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson sent him out to do; enforce U. S. Foreign Policy with violence. The only person on the ballot qualified to lead us into war is John McCain. According to Iran, they're getting ready to cook something up, and we've been put on notice.

Remember, George W. Bush went into the White House in peactime, vowing to return dignity to the office. He was not a good choice, only a better choice than Gore, and not by much as history demonstrates.

I can only hope the Democratic voters will stop for a moment and think about what Obama would be facing if Iraq was still a viable military threat to our national interests. Imagine what a United States demilitarized by the Gore administration would be facing as Iran started making threats against Israel two weeks before the election.

The Iranians have proved they are stupid. They don't understand our culture either.

There is a saying in professional military cirlces: "No plan survives engagement with the enemy." If you think Obama is up to the task, it's your right to vote for him. I hope it works out for you.

0

Duke_bets 6 years, 2 months ago

seeuski - You make McCain out to be your father, brother, or some sort of next of kin. McCain was not the only POW the US has ever had. Or, the only guy to ever fight a war.

Unwrap yourself from that Republican flag and use the tools god placed between your ears.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

I have and that is why I am here to disagree with the blathering that you spew. This doesn't have to become a personal problem but does everyone have to agree with you or you make these kinds of comments? Don't forget, MSNBC is always there to make you feel better.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

As former military, I feel I have the right to question McCain's insubordination. As those attacking Obama on the past say, "it points to judgement and character." I applaud him on the repatriation issue...but that was his job as an officer. It took a lot to meet that condition, granted.

Tax Cuts- You can say that "in the future" a Pres. McCain would veto anything with pork. Until it happens, it's conjecture. Based on his last vote, I'm not willing to believe it. He voted for a "socialist" bill...because it was an emergency. So now we have a "Break Glass in Case of Emergency Socialism Needed?"

Iraq War- Obama is also on record as saying more troops were needed in Iraq long before Bush had accepted any need for an increase of soldiers. He is also already on record saying more troops are needed in Afghanistan. That one hasn't happened yet. But as I've stated in the past- a surge worked for something we shouldn't have been doing in the first place. The priority was Afghanistan; not Iraq.

Bailout Bill- not sure where you get that McCain helped, considering almost everything I've read, including from Fox News, said neither one did very much that Thurs/Fri while McCain suspended his campaign. That was a purely political move in order to sway some sympathy...and it nothing came of it. Plus...wouldn't the pork have been the "ugly" part of it? Remember- it was Bill Frist who wouldn't allow the 2005 Senate bill on the floor for a vote, too. McCain didn't bother to help support new bill effort that he tauted "sponsoring" (actually, he piggy-backed on it after a year, just before it was killed anyway.)

ACORN...that could be a problem, but honestly, I had never heard of ACORN before the last couple of weeks. Just like I had never heard of Ayers or Wright (that I can recall) before this last year.

As for my last statement, since people are talking about a stimulus bill again, it's bound to happen. I rather it go to somewhere it might actually help. People (JLM) keeps saying "debt is good!" or stuff to that effect. Funny how they don't think that in their personal lives when it comes to debt. So yes- I'm against stimulus packages in general. On the last one, they wasted a good portion of millions just to mail out a letter to let people know (all those people who don't read the news or watch TV) that they'll be getting a check instead of just sending a statement with the check...or just sending the check itself.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

McCain's letter to Congress in 2005.

McCain Cosponsored Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005; Reform of Fannie and Freddie

In 2003, Senator John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. (Text of bill and related information.) The reform, due to Democratic resistance, never became law. Here was a statement John McCain made in support of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005:

Statement by John McCain Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 1 90, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

c-span video of the Dems attacks on the messengers about Fannie Freddie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w

0

Duke_bets 6 years, 2 months ago

seeuski - 'I am tearing up as I write this'............That's what I was commenting on.

You were the one spewing, in fact, crying over the matter.

By the way, if you check Stoddard's past posts, I believe he has stated that he is a Republican, but might just be in favor of the Dems for a change.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Matthew, The other points 1st Obama voted for the bailout bill so what is the angelic feeling towards him for? 2nd, When and where did Obama call for more troops in Iraq? He is on record for ever saying everything from pull out immediately to pull out a brigade a month depending on which way the polls blow. 3rd, Afghanistan, He had forewarning of the Generals plans of troop increases and all he did was parrot those ideas and make them his own. Am I supposed to believe that Obama is so all knowing about foreign policy issues when his first response about Russia's invasion into Georgia was "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war," . I don't know I guess I just don't see where Georgia was in need of restraint just maybe they needed a strong response from one of the candidates. Oh yes there was one from John McCain and it was very Presidential and he showed a willingness to stand behind Georgia who happens to be an ally.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

That letter is from 2006; not 2003, 2 years before the bill made it to committee. It's original sponors were just Chuck Hagel, Eliz. Dole, and John Sununu.

Here's some 2003 info for light reading. Evidently, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill that the Senate...Frist...never allowed past committee.

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/republican-congress-talked-about-financial-reform-but-did-nothing.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440681,00.html

As for Clinton, he admitted BOTH parties were responsible, but at the time, it was a Republican held Congress under a Republican President. Heck- Pelosi was able to help get the 2007 version signed into law.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Duke, Yes I do get passionate about some things like who I vote for. I have been reading Matthews posts for a long time and while he definitely has some conservative stances like on Justice issues and spending I just think he is stuck, as most are, on the Iraq war logic. I believe the expert who was Bill Clinton's 1992 Iraq Adviser Laurie Mylroie and the evidence that she brings to the table in showing that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11 among other acts of deathly terror against America.

I was a Democrat all my life and started voting Republican only after 9/11 and I had researched the reasons why we had been attacked and who was behind it.

I then felt that the left leaning media was hiding the truth from America because of a strong anti war stance and that has turned out to be very true.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

I EXPECTED Obama to vote for the bailout; not the Republicans, and certainly not John "I'll make'em famous" McCain.

Afghanistan- No, it goes back to us not having the need to go into Iraq so we could have concentrated on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. You know- the guy who masterminded 9/11 and the country that he hid in?

Russia/Georgia- there's still no concrete evidence that Russia is the one who went in first. South Ossetia doesn't want to be a part of Georgia in the first place. And if Georgia is the ally we so need, why haven't we had them admitted into NATO. Others have suggested that it's because they will do nothing at this time to help NATO causes, either militarily or monetarily. Basically, it's just to piss off Russia. And if it's true that Georgia went in first, then Russia was doing exactly what we did to Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait. You remember Saddam, right? The guy we used to "pal" around with when Iran was a major concern during the end of Carter's term and into Reagan's terms? (Uh-oh! Could Saddam be Reagan's version of Ayers??? LOL! Quite the analogy, eh?)

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

And yes- I'm a Republican but a moderate one. On a scale from 1-10 left and 1-10 right with 0 in the middle, I'm probably 5-6 to the right. I just get that "maverick" tendency to take on my party when I feel they're wrong in certain policies.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Where you think you are on a scale and where others would place you on a scale based on your head being in the sand on who was the sponsor of terrorism against the USA since 1993 threw 9/11 is another issue. That is a slippery scale. Saddam Hussein was behind all the terrorist attacks against us since the first gulf war and there is proof of it. That is the main reason we have had no further attacks since we, under the leadership of George Bush, took out the tyrant who has killed more Americans than any other terrorist. It has also been proven that Saddam Hussein was behind the most horrific terrorist attacks in Israel in the same manner (state sponsorship or funding)which included bus bombings and the like and there is proof. So we will disagree as to what the proper course of action would have been after 9/11 but I say if Clinton had done his Constitutional duty in 1993 when Saddam Hussein sent the first terrorist attack at the WTC and had taken out Saddam we would not be at war today.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

I feel no desire to spat with you on Russia/Georgia and who you blame for the bailout or your insistence that all we needed to do was get Osama in Afghanistan and we were done blah blah blah. I feel you are definitely wrong on all. I would rather have a balance of power then the Dems ruling over all arms of Gov't. That rubber stamp will hurt us long into the future. Get ready for the rewriting of the Constitution once Obama puts the most Liberal justices in the Supreme Court.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

No...Saddam wasn't behind it all, no matter what you may think. There is no proof that CAN be provided. Therefore- Saddam can't be construed as the one who killed the most terrorists. Even Bush never made that claim completely out loud. (And if HW Bush had just taken out Saddam in the 1st Gulf War...blah, blah, blah... we can point the finger thru the ages, regardless of political affiliation.) Same with Russia going in first- no definitive proof...yet.

And just think- All Dems may just rubber stamp everything just like All Repubs did from 2001-2006. No difference there. And most "liberal" judges will just offset most "conservative" judges that we have right now. Balance.

0

oldskoolstmbt 6 years, 1 month ago

you go matt!!! your line of thinking in this forum is leaps and bounds above seeu's....it's amazing how seeu has the whole terrorist mystery solved! and to think how much money we pay the big boys in washington to do that job....

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 1 month ago

Thanks, oldskoolstmbt! Anyone can present a conspiracy theory. Most people can present a plausible conspiracy theory. Rarely can people provide anything more than conjecture as proof to those theories.

0

playa46 6 years, 1 month ago

Seeuski-

McCain: Let's do it without thinking!!!!

Obama: Let's stop and think a moment about our options so that we do not have to deal with more problems like Bush did and McCain would do 90 percent of the time.

And I agree with oldskool and Matthew, read a book for once and come down from your Republican Flag and think...

BTW- Matthew, if you are who I think you are I believe I had your wife as a teacher :)

0

seeuski 6 years, 1 month ago

oldschool, Which Bigboy in DC is getting paid to figure it out? Do you mean Laurie Mylroie and Jayna Davis and Rita Katz etc etc? Or do you mean Sandy Berger the operative? Or do you mean the drive by media and the Michael Moores who are in the tank and have spent the last 6 years shaping the beliefs of America to more easily accept that Bush was involved somehow but Saddam Hussein is just a poor old slob who wouldn't hurt a fly? It is understandable that you all can tip a glass together and bash me on this but I am convinced until someone brings forth other proof. Thank you and good Friday Gentlemen.

0

knee_dropper 6 years, 1 month ago

You're comparing apple to oranges JLM. Total Iraqi violent deaths since 2003 - 151,000 Iraqi civilian violent deaths - 22,586 24,159 in 2007 Sorry JLM, there aren't any figures up for 2008 yet, but I assure you the number will be higher than the American combat deaths. Another bombing two days ago that killed 11 people and wounded twice that. Funny how you don't really here about these in the "liberal media" anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html

When was the last time you heard about a bombing in Chicago, New York or Los Angeles that killed multiple people? So tell me, exactly how is Iraq safer?

0

JLM 6 years, 1 month ago

Chicago - 426 murder deaths in 2008 New York - 417 murder deaths in 2998 Los Angeles - 302 murder deaths in 2008

Iraq - 281 combat deaths in 2008

Iraq safer than Chicago, New York, LA individually and collectively --- hey, let's withdraw from ............................ Chicago!

The surge worked.

Thanks, John S McCain for having the wisdom and experience to insist on the surge.

Hmmm, BO, not quite ready for prime time.

Good judgment, the product of experience. Experience, the product of bad judgment.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 1 month ago

playa- No, I believe that's Tracy Stoddard. No relation.

0

seeuski 6 years, 1 month ago

knee, The last time ....hmmm..... William Ayers?

0

oldskoolstmbt 6 years, 1 month ago

see-u...it's amazing...now you know what every employee is paid to do in washington as well!!obviously, your talents are being wasted here in these small town forums....run seeu, run!PLEASE

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.