So in the end, before anyone gets too excited about a certain segment of the conservative brain trust softening its adversarial attitude toward the mainstream media, it’s worthwhile to take a good, hard look at what they’re really saying.
- 1
- 2
Politics — December 21, 2006 02:36 PM
Is Laura Bush Leading the Debate?
It began as a ripple, then a rumble, and now it’s beginning to really roll. Who would have thought that a few simple comments by the First Lady about media bias would cause such a stir?
By Paul McLeary
Subscribe to the Columbia Journalism Review at our special Web rates.
—advertisement—
Blog
The Kicker last updated: Fri 4:43 PM
- Greg Craig and Transparency
- Well, It May Deserve an Award in Something
- Now a Little Bit Less Excluded
- Thoughts on the Gelman/Silver Op-Ed
- The Luxury Store Has No Clothes
Desks
The Audit Business
The Observatory Science
- Saving Corwin’s Creatures MSNBC wades into new territory with environmental documentary 100 Heartbeats
- Trains, Planes, and Carbon Offsets Times keeps a needed eye on green premiums
Campaign Desk Politics & Policy
- Greg Craig and Transparency
- Not For All the News in China, Part I Former NYT Shanghai bureau chief Howard French on the coverage of Obama’s trip to Asia
Behind the News The Media
Paul McLeary Suffers Yet Another Liberal Crack Dream
"Crittenden writes that there are some "pervasive underlying assumptions and perspective[s] that taint" much mainstream media reporting, including "the notion that we remain a nation at peace, with a bit of a global crime problem, engaged in elective wars, and the notion that adversarial reporting should proceed full steam ahead regardless of any immediate or potential consequences."
Like Kurtz, however, Crittenden feels comfortable tossing these charges out unencumbered by any examples or evidence."
padikiller quotes from McLeary's link to Crittenden's article
"Another example is the pervasion disinformation campaign that suggests Saddam Hussein was an manufactured threat, ignoring the actual history, what was believed by every major intelligence agency at the time, the image he was successfully projecting, and the very real consequences of the collapse of sanctions. Another example is the fast and loose use of terms such as "torture," eagerness to amplify any U.S. misdeed, and the unequal standards of coverage applied to matters such as harsh U.S. interrogation techniques, as opposed the relative lack of horror and matter-of-fact coverage of true atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists."
padikiller wonders
Does Paul McLeary even bother to read the the articles he criticizes... Or is he just disregarding the truth here to the further his screwy liberal agenda?...
Lazy?... Or Liar?....
Either way... This self-proclaimed "watchdog" of "professional journalism" is once again committing malpractice...
I will never understand how he manages to get this tripe past any self-respecting editor...
But there it is...
Posted by padikiller on Thu 21 Dec 2006 at 04:15 PM
Crittenden uses the word "example" but never tells us who is spreading this "disinformation campaign," or where and how they're doing it. We also learn that someone, somewhere, at some time has played "fast and loose" with "terms such as "torture."" Who did this, or how they did it is never spelled out.
I don't consider those "examples," since they don't tell us anything specific.
Posted by pmcleary on Thu 21 Dec 2006 at 06:38 PM
Paul,
Why bother debating Padikiller? He'd believe night is day if a White House press release told him the liberal media was ignoring the significant sunlight reflected by the moon.
Those with a modicum of rationality (or who've simply seen the Abu Ghraib photos) can tell that Crittenden's handwaving is just that.
Posted by MRooney on Thu 21 Dec 2006 at 09:32 PM
Paul McCleary wrote:
I don't consider those [Crittenden's examples] "examples," since they don't tell us anything specific
padikiller responds
This is a ridiculous cop-out.
Mr. Crittenden clearly provided a specific example of anti-American MSM bias... The MSM's overblown use of the word "torture" to describe isolated instances of American (nonlethal) misconduct.. versus the MSM's refusal to apply the term to REAL torture- the vicious conduct of the head-lopping "militants"..
How much more "specific" can the man be, for crying out loud?...
Posted by padikiller on Fri 22 Dec 2006 at 09:26 AM
MRooney blithers liberal nonsense
Those with a modicum of rationality (or who've simply seen the Abu Ghraib photos) can tell that Crittenden's handwaving is just that.
padikiller notes the reality
Ah yes!...
The "torture" of Abu Gharaib!.. That last-ditch liberal catch-all argument.. A magical invocation like "Abacadabra!" to hurl at reality whenver a realist enters the debate.
Where a handful of nasty enlisted personnel abused a few prisoners at a single facility in a country the size of California during a war... And were investigated, tried and punished for their misconduct by the "evil" U.S. Army..
So THERE you have it.. George Bush has a proven policy of "torturing" these "militants"... (According to screwy liberal logic)..
Of course, this liberal nonsense is shot to Hell when the truth is realized... Namely that the "tortured" "militants" of Abu Gharaib are BEGGING for the AMERICANS to take over the facility instead of the Iraqis who replaced them... So that they can get their air-conditioning,hot meals, and cable TV back....
You want to show us some "torture", MRooney?...
Look at the video of Nick Berg's death and then get back to us...
OK?...
Posted by padikiller on Fri 22 Dec 2006 at 09:38 AM
Who's more delusional? The person thinking the press distorts all the news out of Iraq? Or the person thinking the press coverage from Iraq has been balanced and accurate? The former is wrong, the latter moonbat crazy.
The real underlying issue here is the absolute lack of credibility the media has due to the way it covers events. We no longer get the who, what, why, where, when. We get situations described in a manner that fit within an accepted narrative used to define the larger event the situation is supposedly part of. At that, we can’t even be sure the situation described ever occurred. As has been made undoubtedly clear by the rumors reported as fact that came out of the Katrina disaster. Hilarious but for the fact that part of the reason emergency crews were slow to go in to NO was due to the need for police and guard units to go in 1st..Due to all the rampant violence said to be occurring.. Most of which never happened. Then there was the matter of doctored and staged photos out of Lebanon. Stories reported that didn’t quite match the facts on the ground.. If the event happened at all. After that. You'd think the media would rethink their reliance on stringers who might not be objective..Or might actually have an active agenda. But no. And now we learn that the AP put out a story about 6 Iraqis being burned alive and four mosques destroyed by fire. NONE of it happened. Further more.. The person who gave the AP the story has been used for 60 to 70 prior stories by the AP. How many of those were false? How many of the other stringers used by our media in Iraq are assisting the insurgency by feeding the media demoralizing stories? And how long is the media going to pretend it’s not a problem and continue being the insurgency's proxy mouthpiece?
I want an accurate picture of events . I have about as much use for some conservative cynic telling me its all bunk because the news isn’t helping his agenda. As I do for some divorced from reality, beltway liberal, media hack trying to sell me on some narrative having more in common with his world view than any actual event.
Anymore it’s hard to tell if they’re the fourth estate or a fifth column.
There’s a t-shirt I see more and more of that sums the situation up perfectly. It says-
Rope.
Tree.
Journalist.
Some assembly required.
M
Posted by Mike on Fri 22 Dec 2006 at 02:09 PM
Padikiller's analyses are not very well thought out or persuasive.
Abu Ghraib can't be compared to a beheading. What leads him to think so? Because both are despicable acts?
Let's try a thought experiment: would we be more horrified of beheadings if we were performing them? Or would Padikiller say they were justified and not worthy of any ink?
Would we be more dismissive (as Padikiller is) of Abu Ghraib "torture" if we saw Americans subjected to that kind of humiliation by terrorists? Or would Padikiller be outraged and demand that we pay attention to this?
His moral stance is not moral at all but situated firmly in his world-view.
Posted by Stecxjo on Sat 23 Dec 2006 at 12:54 PM
Stecxjo wrote:
Would we be more dismissive (as Padikiller is) of Abu Ghraib "torture" if we saw Americans subjected to that kind of humiliation by terrorists? Or would Padikiller be outraged and demand that we pay attention to this?
His moral stance is not moral at all but situated firmly in his world-view.
padikiller responds
You want a "situated stance"?...
OK!..
Where would you rather be "situated"...
At the bottom of the pyramid at the Abu Gharaib photo shoot with a dog leash around your neck?... Or in Nick Berg's postion just before he had his head hack off by the MSM's "militants"?...
HUH?..
The POINT I made (and that you simply cannot refute) is that the press has taken the isolated abuse at Abu Gharaib and turned into a policy of "torture"....
Critteden was unquestionably RIGHT about the MSM's complicity with the enemy in Iraq and Paul McLeary knows it.... In fact, EVERYBODY knows it... ESPECIALLY the screwy Orwellain liberals who deny it the most...
Want Proof?..
Check Google News for stories on Nick Berg's (ACTUAL) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=nick%20berg%20tortured&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Then check for stories on the Abu Ghraib (NON) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=Abu+ghraib+torture
You screwy liberal fruitcakes can dance around the reality all you want... But the truth isn't going anywhere...
Posted by padikiller on Sat 23 Dec 2006 at 01:10 PM
Mike cuts to the quick
And now we learn that the AP put out a story about 6 Iraqis being burned alive and four mosques destroyed by fire. NONE of it happened. Further more.. The person who gave the AP the story has been used for 60 to 70 prior stories by the AP. How many of those were false? How many of the other stringers used by our media in Iraq are assisting the insurgency by feeding the media demoralizing stories? And how long is the media going to pretend it’s not a problem and continue being the insurgency's proxy mouthpiece?
padikiller concurs
Damned straight!...
How about it, "Watchdogs"?...
Can any of you "professional journalists" answer?...
HUH?...
Posted by padikiller on Sat 23 Dec 2006 at 01:15 PM
Padikiller still wants to compare beheadings with torture. I am asking him to compare "torture" of one group of people (the enemy) with the same "torture" of our side (the good guys). If he does not have the same reaction to that sort of treatment, then he doesn't have a consisent world view.
The same would go for beheadings, in which, the case could be made that the actual torture are the minutes before one gets beheaded. In other words, the fear of being killed would be the torture.
I fail to see how this differs from the experience of anyone being humiliated. That the end result is death for one and not for the other is an after-the-fact appraisal. From the point of view of those tortured (or those beheaded, or expecting to be beheaded), the torture and fear would be equal, assuming you believe your enemy would actually kill you.
Since there were actual murders at Abu Ghraib, what point is it that Padikiller thinks he's making here?
Posted by Stecxjo on Sun 24 Dec 2006 at 12:58 AM
If you don't feed the troll, he might go away.
Then again ... padkiller seems particularly interested in destroying any and all that is Paul McLeary.
At least you've got a fan, Mr. McLeary.
Posted by jdorsey on Sun 24 Dec 2006 at 02:18 AM
Stecxjo wrote:
Padikiller still wants to compare beheadings with torture. I am asking him to compare "torture" of one group of people (the enemy) with the same "torture" of our side (the good guys).
padikiller responds
???????????????????????????
What the Hell are you talking about?..
The "torture" administered by our enemies isn't the "same" as the abuse at Abu Ghraib!...
As a srewy liberal dodge, you are asking me instead to compare the isolated abuse (it was NOT torture) at Abu Ghraib with some hypothetical non-headlopping similar abuse that wasn't doled out by the enemy...
And further you ask me to ignore the ACTUAL headlopping torture routinely administered by the MSM's "militants"...
This is a typical liberal reasoning tactic... Discount reality (or in your case, simply ignore it completely) and instead debate the moral equivalence of a nonexistant enemy behavior... Such evasion is taken as "debate" in McLearyland....
Well.. I hate to rain on the liberal parade... But here is the REALITY, Sport...
We don't drag the bodies of captured soldiers through the streets and turn the propaganda video over to CNN...
We don't force our captured enemy combatants to covert or die...
We don't slice off the heads of our enemies on video...
We investigate, prosecute and punish abuse and atrocities... (Yes, atrocities WILL occur in ANY war... Including Iraq)...
What EXACTLY is there to "compare" here in the conduct of Americans versus the conduct of the "militant insurgents"?...
(Hint) NOTHING!....
Stecxjo writes one of the most idiotic things I have ever read
The same would go for beheadings, in which, the case could be made that the actual torture are the minutes before one gets beheaded. In other words, the fear of being killed would be the torture. That the end result is death for one and not for the other is an after-the-fact appraisal. From the point of view of those tortured (or those beheaded, or expecting to be beheaded), the torture and fear would be equal, assuming you believe your enemy would actually kill you.
I fail to see how this differs from the experience of anyone being humiliated.
padikiller cuts loose
The reason you "fail to see" the difference between wearing a dog collar and having your head chopped off is YOUR screwy liberal world-view... A view that would be altered no doubt if you were placed in the position of having to choose between wearing a dog leash for a photograph and having your own head chopped off...
You have the dubious distinction of having written one of the most stupid things ever posted here... And THAT is saying something!...
You are frontrunner for the McLeary Medallion!...
You silly moonbats can't explain the most telling refutation of your stupid argument... Namely that the supposedly "tortured" detatinees at Abu Ghraib are BEGGING for the Americans to come back and take over the facility...
Posted by padikiller on Sun 24 Dec 2006 at 11:28 AM
ONE MORE TIME, MOONBATS!
Looks like the first Reality Injection didn't take... Time for another dose!...
Check Google News for stories on Nick Berg's (ACTUAL) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=nick%20berg%20tortured&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Then check for stories on the Abu Ghraib (NON) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=Abu+ghraib+torture
You screwy liberal fruitcakes can dance around the reality all you want... But the truth isn't going anywhere...
Posted by padikiller on Sun 24 Dec 2006 at 11:43 AM
It appears to me that Padikiller is unable to comprehend a simple comparison. He insists on comparing two dissimilar actions (humilation, beheading) as torture, but does not recognize that the torture is in the fear of being killed. I would posit, and I await his refutation, that the person that is beheaded has much on his mind afterward. That is not to say that I find the act of beheading less than despicable. It is. However, those who are held, abused, and humiliated -- and it would be considered torture if it occurred to someone's son or daughter, I suspect -- have no reason to believe that their humiliation would not result in death. In fact, that is the most effective torture -- psychological -- as padikiller may have at one point learned and since forgotten.
More to padikiller's main point, that the terrorists are pretty nasty in their methods is obvious to any compassionate person. I don't see why he continues to reiterate that point. It's obvious.
That padikiller also resorts to name calling and jingoism makes me think that he is not a worthwhile advocate of his own stated views. Is there some other reader out there who holds similar views to padikiller who might have the ability to analyze the issues without resorting to theatrics? I would appreciate an intelligent and reasoned approach from someone here.
Posted by Stecxjo on Sun 24 Dec 2006 at 01:12 PM
Stecxjo wrote:
padikiller's main point, that the terrorists are pretty nasty in their methods is obvious to any compassionate person. I don't see why he continues to reiterate that point. It's obvious.
padikiller responds
BECAUSE...
As Jules Crittendon correctly noted in his EXAMPLES...
The MSM steadfastly REFUSES to note this "obvious" fact of yours!...
Let's try this ONE MORE TIME!...
Check Google News for stories on Nick Berg's (ACTUAL) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=nick%20berg%20tortured&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Then check for stories on the Abu Ghraib (NON) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=Abu+ghraib+torture
What do you find?...
HUNDREDS of MSM reports on the supposedly "tortured militant detainees" at Abu Ghraib.... and a big fat ZERO in coverage of Nick Berg's REAL TORTURE at the hands of the "militant insurgents"...
Crazy (and stupid or naive) liberal McLearyites see the MSM transform the isolated Abu Ghraib incident into a Rovian "policy" of "torture"..
and fall for the nonsense in droves...
It's right out of Orwell!...
In FACT (despite your ridiculous assertion to the contrary) the misconduct at Abu Ghraib was NOT torture... But merely abuse... (Vile and mean-spirited abuse that should have been... and WAS... investigated.. prosecuted... and punished...)
Your moral equation of the sentiments of the victims of abuse at Abu Ghraib with the sentiments of Nick Berg as his head is being hacked off is simply idiotic...
PERIOD...
Posted by padikiller on Sun 24 Dec 2006 at 02:25 PM
Padikiller is not worth discussing issues with. He makes that clear when he uses vituperative language. He is either willfully misunderstanding the question or he lacks any sense of what my argument is. He doesn't address it; he only repeats his own assertions.
He writes only for himself and I don't think he's writing down to his audience.
Posted by Stecxjo on Sun 24 Dec 2006 at 03:05 PM
Let's try this YET ONE MORE TIME!...
Let's give an EXAMPLE of Jules Crittenden's point that you screwy liberal moonbats can't refute...
Check Google News for stories on Nick Berg's (ACTUAL) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=nick%20berg%20tortured&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Then check for stories on the Abu Ghraib (NON) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=Abu+ghraib+torture
Both were HUGE stories.... Covered extensively all over the MSM...
So... What do you find?...
HUNDREDS of MSM reports on the supposedly "tortured militant detainees" at Abu Ghraib.... and a big fat ZERO in coverage of Nick Berg's REAL TORTURE at the hands of the "militant insurgents"... THAT'S WHAT!....
EXACTLY AS JULES CRITTENDEN CORRECTLY STATED!...
Now WHY is this, my delsional liberal friends?...
HUH?...
Any of you fair-minded "professional journalists" want to explain this?... Care to explain why Mr. Crittenden's EXAMPLE of media bias is convingly proven by a simple trip to Google?!....
HUH?!....
At any rate...
Paul McLeary's dishonest claim that Crittenden had provided no "examples" of MSM bias is cleary shot to HELL by these IRREFUTABLE search results....
SOMEBODY has to get some journalism done in McLearyland... And it looks like the responsibility once again falls to me...
Noblesse oblige, je suppose...
Posted by padikiller on Sun 24 Dec 2006 at 03:23 PM
Heh. Padikiller invoking Orwell is like Mel Gibson talking up the Talmud. 2006 is now complete!
Posted by MRooney on Mon 25 Dec 2006 at 10:11 PM
While I think I understand what Stecxjo is trying to get at, I admit I found his wording unnecessarily complex and confusing.
If I understand it correctly, what Stecxjo is arguing is that padikiller is trying to draw a comparison between "abuse" as he calls it and Nick Berg's "Torture". The problem is, Nick Berg wasn't tortured. He was executed. The military reported there was trauma to Nick's body, but the allegation was not torture, it was murder.
Torture:
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object)
6.to subject to torture.
7.to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8.to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9.to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10.to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).
Sorry to have put that all here, but I didn't want to be accused of not putting up the entire definition.
Nick Berg died a horrible death. But he was put to death. That's not torture. That's murder.
Stecxjo also wants us to consider how we'd feel if it were US citizens in the place of the Abu Ghraib detainees.
For myself, when I learned of what went on in Abu Ghraib. I admit I was underwhelmed. But what Padkiller is missing, I think, is the culture differences. To an American these offences seem petty. But to a country where religious zelotry is the norm, it's quite serious.
Personally, I'd expect the media to report what our boys and girls did with more fervor than what some militants did. The militants are the "bad guys" they're expected to do horrible things. Our troops, however, are supposed to be the "good guys" we're supposed to be above that kind of debased behavior.
Being ex-military, I also thing the people prosecuted were scapegoats. "Expendable" non-coms thrown to the wolves so that a promising officer's career wasn't ruined. But that's just my speculation.
What disturbes me the most, is that we've been so willing to trash the Geneva Conventions under this administration. Those conventions are in some cases the only protection our troops have in enemy territory. It was an international standard that countries were held to whether they'd signed or not. They were accepted as the base to compare treatment of PoWs. Now that we've trampled on the standard ... "well, if the US doesn't, why should we even try? And they can't accuse us of poor treatment of PoWs without seeming hypocritacal."
If the conservatives want us to be the world police, shouldn't we at least be leading by setting a better example?
Posted by AhmNee on Wed 27 Dec 2006 at 05:58 PM
AhmNee Babbles Even More Stupid Nonsense Than The Other Daft Moonbats Have
The problem is, Nick Berg wasn't tortured...
padikiller responds
Nick Berg had his head hacked off with a dull blade, screaming in agony until his windpipe was severed....
But that's not "torture" in McLearyland!...
You stupid moonbats are idiots... You just can't make your silly liberal agenda jibe with reality, so you vomit this kind of ludicrous tripe here instead...
Get real, you stupid, sick morons... Deal with the reality here...
Posted by padikiller on Wed 27 Dec 2006 at 06:37 PM
AhmNee, thank you for responding with a thoughtful comment. The writer nicknamed "padikiller" seems unable to grasp the question I put forth -- and I agree with you: I could have presented the argument more clearly and succinctly. You have interpreted my questions as I meant to present them.
You also raised a point that I have been thinking about. The expectations that we have of others and of ourselves. I think the news is dependent upon that. I don't expect the best from the terrorists, so when they behead someone -- an act that is horrible, reprehensible and meant to provoke a reaction not unlike the repulsion that "padikiller" apparently wants us all to feel -- that act, while worthy of being reported, is not at all unexpected from an enemy that doesn't share our values.
But my sense of what our values are, or should be, is rocked by something even as tame in comparison as Abu Ghraib. I don't think of us Americans as capable of what those photos from Abu Ghraib depicted. And, despite the attempts of "padikiller" to dismiss these lapses as something not worthy of note, it would appear that these humilations were not isolated incidents and that they were, at times, fatal.
To answer my own questions, would I feel differently if Americans were piled one on the other naked, threatened by dogs, shocked by electrical devices to the genitals, pulled around by dog collars, and suffocated to death, at the hands of the enemy? Actually, I would feel worse about this than about Abu Ghraib. I'm ashamed to say that I don't feel as strongly about the "enemy" being tortured as I do about our troops. But it's a matter of degree, not of morality. Both acts are wrong; I just feel more connection with our side than the other. I would condone neither.
How would I feel if we Americans were to lop someone's head off? Much worse than what I felt for Nick Berg, which, again, is a matter of degree. I thought it a despicable act by despicable persons. Here "padikiller" has his point, such as it is. But are we despicable persons? If we do the same, are we as worthy of contempt as the terrorists?
If we respond in kind, we accomplish nothing and make ourselves the less in doing so.
Reality also must respond to ideals, or there is nothing to judge reality against except what the other guy does.
Posted by Stecxjo on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 04:22 AM
Stecxjo blithers
it would appear that these [incidents of abuse at Abu Ghraib]humilations were not isolated incidents and that they were, at times, fatal
padikiller responds
LOL....
Yeah... Those Baghdad cemeteries are FULL of the victims of lethal American "humiliations".... (The severe French taunting of Arthur's men in Monty Python's "Search for the Holy Grail" comes to mind as a less "lethal" example of such "torture")
You guys are bunch of looney simpleton whack jobs...
Well, I have some news for you, fellas... No matter how hard you click your ruby red slippers together... No matter how much crack you smoke... No matter how much you dance around the truth...
You're not going to alter the reality here..
1. Abu Ghraib was an ISOLATED incident perpetrated by a HANDFUL of criminals who were TRIED and PUNISHED.. It is NOT a basis (at least anywhere except McLearyland) for a criticism of American war policy... Prison abuse happens in civilian prisons all the time... But this does NOT mean that we stop hunting down criminals, you blithering fools... It means that we punish abuse... JUST LIKE THE MILITARY DID!
2. Nobody died from the supposedly "fatal" "humilitions" rendered at Abu Ghraib... Despite your idiotic claims...
3. The supposedly "tortured" prisoners at Abu Ghraib are BEGGING (according to the liberal Guardian newspaper) for the return of their torturing Americans captors. Seems like they miss the air conditioning, cable TV and hot meals the "torturers" provided...
4. Anyone who claims that the "tortured" inmates of Abu Ghraib had it worse than Nick Berg did is a DAMNED IDIOT....
PERIOD!...
Here is the REALITY again for you morons...
Check Google News for stories on Nick Berg's (ACTUAL) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=nick%20berg%20tortured&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Then check for stories on the Abu Ghraib (NON) torture...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=Abu+ghraib+torture
Both were HUGE stories.... Covered extensively all over the MSM...
So... What do you find?...
HUNDREDS of MSM reports on the supposedly "tortured militant detainees" at Abu Ghraib.... and a big fat ZERO in coverage of Nick Berg's REAL TORTURE at the hands of the "militant insurgents"... THAT'S WHAT!....
EXACTLY AS JULES CRITTENDEN CORRECTLY STATED!...
Posted by padikiller on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 09:33 AM
Why does "don't provoke the troll" keep running through my head?
Padkiller, just standing there and shouting your view louder than anyone else doesn't make you correct.
If a man is shot in the stomache and bleeds out, he dies a horrible death. But he hasn't been tortured.
Nick died horribly. But having your head cut off in NOT torture despite your insistance that it is. The mental and physical pain he endured was not prolonged for the purpose of gathering information or even for the entertainment of his captors. Shout that it is torture and shoehorn what happened into your personal view as much as you want, you are wrong. Period. And all your posturing won't change that.
It's great that you can use Google News specifically in order to get no mention of "Nick Berg Tortured". Drop the search term to "Nick Berg" and look, you do actually get hits. Not the same volume, certainly but I've already voiced my views on why.
You insist that the Abu Ghraib incident was non-torture. I've had the chance to look into it further. The mainstream media didn't even come close to showing how bad things were in Abu Ghraib. There were indeed deaths there as well. Not the least are from sleep deprivation.
I don't expect any of this to change your view. Either by negligence or design you are ignorant of the facts that don't support your view.
Here's the part where you insult my sanity, intelligence and most likely my upbringing. Unfortunatly, it doesn't make you any more correct. But in case I'm wrong and you would actually like to educate yourself, I suggest the wiki on Abu Ghraib as a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
Posted by AhmNee on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 10:54 AM
Pure Moonbat Idiocy
But having your head cut off in NOT torture despite your insistance that it is.
padikiller tells it like it is
The problem is...
You are wrong...
Having your head cut off your conscious body with a dull blade while you scream IS torture..
PERIOD...
Posted by padikiller on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 12:11 PM
Paul,
You know it might be interesting to actually discuss an issue here without the thread being hijacked regularly by people off their medications. I'm not in favor of unilaterally banning people but when you have a single individual who conducts ad hominem attacks on every single person commenting that doesn't march in lockstep with his opinion, maybe it's time. Or at least give him a timeout once he goes into manic mode.
Padikiller, you should start your own blog if you want to control the conversation. I'm sure you'll get great traffic, hell, Glenn Reynolds will link to anyone!
Posted by not the senator on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 01:12 PM
Not the senator wrote
Padikiller, you should start your own blog if you want to control the conversation
padikiller responds
Ay yes!... The last Liberal Resort..
Censorship....
Shout down the opposition... By pies in the face... Or by assaulting speakers, if necessary...
But when the Reality starts flowing... Do WHATEVER it takes to shut up the truthtellers!...
Censorship is the last bastion of liberalism...
Liberals assume they own and control the internet... And anyone who writes things that offend the liberal psyche should be banned (a la Berlin, 1933)...
Kill the messenger!... That's the way McLearyites debate issues!...
Well, let's see what the Reality does to your fascist little attempt at doublespeak, Sport....
WHO is staying on topic here in the comments?...
WHO does so by calling out Mr. McLeary's ridiculous false attack on Jules Crittenden?..
HUH?...
WHO noted that Crittenden (contrary to Mr. McLeary's false assertion to the contrary) did indeed provide examples to support his claim of MSM bias?...
WHO posted links (several times) to t show that HUNDREDS of stories abound in the MSM about the so-called "toture" of the Abu Ghraib detainees, but that NOT A SINGLE ARTICLE exists (in the Google News database, at least) dealing with the horrible (and REAL) torture of Nick Berg at the hands of the MSM's "militant insurgents"?...
HUH?...
I have consistently remained on-topic by noting that Jules Crittenden was RIGHT and that Mr. McLeary is both WRONG and EVASIVE...
Why do you think McLeary hopped on board to "explain" why "examples" aren't "examples" in McLearyland?...
It was because of ME dealing with the issue, pal...
What about you liberal froot loops?...
WHERE is there a single on-topic reference in your juvenile "Ban Padikiller" rant, huh Sport?.... Where is your take on Crittenden's remark?.... (or any other point taken from Mr. McLeary's liberal diatribe)?..
HUH, PAL?....
What do your fellow moonbats have to contribute to the "discussion" here?...
Let's see....
1. Nick Berg wassn't torturesd, but the Abu Ghraib detainees were...
2. The Abu Ghraib detainees were tortured more than Nick Berg was..
3. You can't compare the Abu Graib "torture" to Nick Berg's torture beacuse... Well, you just can't... What you have to do instead is compare the Abu ghraib "torture" to imaginary things that the "militants" didn't do... And forget about the head-lopping...
4. All kinds of admitted screwy liberal biases (cultural awareness, religious sensitivity) justify the disparity in journalism that Jules Crittenden described...
5. The fact that the Abu Ghraib detainees are BEGGING for the return of their American "torturers" must be ignored...
6. The fact that the MSM has produced HUNDREDS of stories on Abu Graib's "torture" but not a SINGLE story on Nick Berg's torture must also be ignored...
THIS is the liberal contribution to the "discussion" here...
You daft moonbats can't change the truth...
That's why you want censorship....
Posted by padikiller on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 02:43 PM
No, we'd just like to discuss an issue without continuing insults.
Look at your posts, not a one of them dooesn't include some insult to another writer or commenter. You seem to suffer some version of written Tourette Syndrome and it's annoying and childish.
Please go away. You have nothing to offer the discussion other than noise.
Posted by not the senator on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 03:09 PM
not the senator hops on his high horse (ignoring his past)
No, we'd just like to discuss an issue without continuing insults.
not the senator's past belies his silly crybaby whine
"...You know it might be interesting to actually discuss an issue here without the thread being hijacked regularly by people off their medications..."
Ed. The phrase "off their medicationss" is apparently not an "insult" in McLearyland... At least not when used by liberals to dodge reality....
"...You've bought into every one of the wingnut talking points...."
Ed. The term "wingnut" is also no "insult" here, either, apparently, but a term of endearment, I suppose....
"Now that's funny! Padikiller and reality being used in the same sentence."
Ed. Nope... No insulting personal attacks from this highminded holier-than-thou moonbat froot loop... Just cold treatment of the issues, right?..
What a hypocritical infantile stance... Typical thin-skinned liberal schtick...
Posted by padikiller on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 04:30 PM
Don't ban him. He's not obscene (not quite) or unlawful. (Though I will note that crying censorship is wrong since this is a forum maintained at CJR's expense.) Just ignore him. He's abundantly proven that he's incapable of rational discussion. I don't think he can even let anyone other than himself get the last word in any thread.
Posted by MRooney on Thu 28 Dec 2006 at 07:48 PM
There are three types of people here...
1. Me (and handful of like-minded others)- providing concrete example after concrete example to support the irrefutable reality...
2. Lunatic Moonbats- who make ridiculous claims, for example that "examples" aren't "examples"... that decaptitation isn't torture... And that Abu Ghraib detainees died off in droves, thus succumbing to the "torture" of lethal American "humiliation"...
3. Typical Moonbats... Who do nothing but bitch and moan about me... Cheer each other on....And who contribute no substance to the debate whatsoever..
Posted by padikiller on Fri 29 Dec 2006 at 09:41 AM
Pigheadedly sticking to your assertions despite evidence to the contrary does not make your so called "facts" irrefutable reality.
If decapitation is torture, what's your stance on the electric chair or about any other form of capitol punishment? You must be a huge anti-death penalty activist?
I have yet to see where the Abu Ghraib detainees are requesting the American captors back. I looked and found no such reference. Care to site a source?
Your formula for responding to posts has been:
1. Call the poster stupid/crazy.
2. Refuse to acknowledge anything contrary to your point of view.
3. Restate your "evidence", despite the fact that it doesn't hold water. By adding "torture" to Nick Berg, you don't get hits on Google news. Remove the erroneous term of "torture" and you do get hits. You can't fault the media because NO ONE agrees that murder and torture are synonymous. And you've offered nothing to change my opinion, you've just reiterated yours ad nausium.
You sir, are a zealot. There is no debating a zelot because for you there is no other side to an arguement. You're not open to new ideas or willing to budge if persuasive new evidence were presented to you. Your mind is closed and you have contributed NOTHING new since your first post. The idea that you're on topic and the only one making sense is narcissistic and preposterous. It is, however, exactly what we've come to expect from you.
Should you be banned? No. But I for one would appreciate a script to filter out your posts. That is until you have something of worth to say.
Posted by AhmNee on Fri 29 Dec 2006 at 10:31 AM
AhmNee Rattles Off More Stupidity
If decapitation is torture, what's your stance on the electric chair or about any other form of capitol punishment? You must be a huge anti-death penalty activist?
padikiller stays on topic
Ah yes!... The Ole' Liberal Two-Step!
Another attempt to dance around the subject!...
Well... First of all, it doesn't matter what I think about the death penalty (though I oppose it)... We are talking about the bias in MSM news coverage here...
SECONDLY.....(Let's repeat ourselves until you get this bit of reality to stick between your ears) Having your head hacked off of your body with a dull blade while you scream in agony...
IS TORTURE!...
You silly moonbat!.... By the definition YOU posted!....
PERIOD!..
AhmNee Seeks Enlightenment
I have yet to see where the Abu Ghraib detainees are requesting the American captors back. I looked and found no such reference. Care to site a source?
padikiller educates obligingly
"'The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better,' said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism."
"Someone was shouting 'Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back'," he said.
And Khalid Alaani, who was also picked up in Ramadi suspected of involvement in Sunni terrorism, said: "We preferred the Americans. We asked to move with them to Baghdad airport because we knew the treatment would be changed because we know what the Iraqis are. When the Americans left everything changed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/wirq10.xml
AhmNee FINALLY Comes Around (a little)
By adding "torture" to Nick Berg, you don't get hits on Google news. Remove the erroneous term of "torture" and you do get hits.
padikiller knocks it home
THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG YOU SIMPLETON!...
THE MSM REFUSES TO ADDRESS NICK BERG'S TORTURE...
As for the so-called "erroneous" use of the term...
You are WRONG... By YOUR definition of the word torture!...
PERIOD!...
You can keep blithering your ludicrous tripe claim that having your head slowly hacked off of your body with a dull blade is not "torture"...
But nobody, Sport... NOBODY with a firing neuron left in their non-decapitated head is going to fall for your tripe...
Why don't you just deal with the Reality here?...
Posted by padikiller on Sat 30 Dec 2006 at 08:51 PM
Padikiller should stop torturing others with his invective, if not his reasoning. It's clear that his arguments regarding the point he believes to be under discusssion are not being given any real credence. Could it be that his tone and word choice have influenced how seriously others take him?
As I read over his posts, I see that he dances the same dance each time, howls and points fingers -- why would anyone want to listen to what he is saying? He manufactures his own opposition by his crudeness of expression.
Let me put this more clearly: if he insists on calling others "moonbats", he has already failed to make his case, no matter his arguments. Perhaps that is the point? He has no arguments to present and so needs to inflame rather than convince? Or perhaps he has no other level of communication to offer....
Posted by Stecxjo on Sun 31 Dec 2006 at 12:39 PM
Stecxjo whined
Blah, blah, blah... I don't like padikiller... blah, blah, blah... padikiller is really irritating me... blah, blah, blah... I don't have anything substantial to add to the debate... blah, blah, blah..... But MAN do I really hate that padikiller.... blah, blah, blah...
Blah, blah, blah... Here's another paragraph to let everyone know that I don't like padikiller... blah, blah, blah... I still don't have anything to say that has anything to do with Mr. McLeary's article.... blah, blah, blah... But JESUS I really hate padikiller... blah, blah, blah...
Blah, blah, blah... I just can't get over that damned padikiller... blah, blah, blah... He calls people names sometimes... blah, blah, blah... So do I, but that's different because I'm better than padikiller.... blah, blah, blah... I can't come up with anything substantial to save my life... blah, blah, blah... But MAN O' MAN do I REALLY hate that padikiller!.... blah, blah, blah...
Posted by padikiller on Sun 31 Dec 2006 at 02:08 PM
Oh, come on now. I'm an 8th grade teacher. I don't hate bad manners, I just look for improvement.
Posted by Stecxjo on Sun 31 Dec 2006 at 02:52 PM
And padikiller isn't improving! (smile)
Posted by Stecxjo on Sun 31 Dec 2006 at 02:54 PM
HOW TORTURE LOST THE WAR & WHY IT IS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
Do Americans have the backbone to investigate the possibility that our government has carried out a systematic policy of torture for the last several years on people who were not charged with or convicted of any crime? There is sufficient evidence that torture has been a systematic policy at
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Grhaib, and in Afghanistan to justify an investigation. There is also evidence suggesting that orders to use torture go up the chain of command through Donald Rumsfeld to Vice President Cheney himself. This includes a memo from Alberto Gonzales proposing ways to soften our obligation to honor the Geneva Conventions. It is furthermore irrefutable that the CIA has been covertly kidnapping people at locations around the world and
spiriting them away to be tortured by others. Most of this has been
documented by Seymour Hersch. His work has not, to my knowledge, been discredited and so cannot be ignored by any honorable American who cherishes the values at the heart of our political system. Just such abuses of power -- arbitrary
detention and cruel and unusual punishment -- inspired the founding
fathers' rebellion against England.
After all, habeas corpus is unquestionably one of the most fundamental values of Anglo-American political culture, a foundation of our Constitution going back to British common law: we should be deeply alarmed that it has been gutted by this administration. Deliberate and systematic violation of these principles constitutes nothing less than treason. Consider the results:
As a tactic in this war on terrorism, torture has cost us far more than we have gained by it. Is there any evidence to support the idea that torture yields reliable information? Doubtful. That’s why Western legal traditions left it behind centuries ago. But there is little reason to doubt that using torture directly endangers American citizens -- by justifying further terrorist attacks against us and undermining our efforts in Iraq: Not only is what happened at Abu Ghraib a recruiting tool that will be useful to terrorists for years to come, after all, any faith
Iraqis had in our benevolent intentions was destroyed by humiliating photos of abuse. The torture policy has thus had catastrophic practical consequences for our soldiers, for our budget, and for our international prestige and power.
Worldwide, the torture policy has discredited our claims that democracy is a better, more just form of government than others, one supposedly in everyone's interest, not just our own. For those Chinese who have long been skeptical there is any real difference between our government and theirs, that the rights we proclaim have any real substance, we have just confirmed that lecturing them on human rights is sheer hypocrisy and bad manners. Why should China conform to our standards of decency or international law, if we don't? Sadly, failure to investigate and
prosecute allegations of torture will confirm our country's moral
bankruptcy in the international sphere. Resorting to "we're not really doing that (no system, just a few bad apples)" and "but if we were, those folks are so evil it would be justified," might work to short-circuit our own consciences, but just won't cut it worldwide.
Because it is decentralized, the war on terrorism is a battle for
“hearts and minds†even more so than conventional wars between states with representatives capable of negotiating a peace. Our promotion of universal values has distinguished us as a nation in the international sphere: the Declaration of Independence does not say, "All American citizens are created equal." But now we have created a new category of human being without human rights. The president now has the legal power
to arbitrarily declare any person an "enemy combatant" - whether
American citizen or not - in order to lock someone up without a trial.
Still, our rhetoric increasingly sounds as if the values we promote apply only to our citizens, leaving little reason for other people around the world to embrace them. We cannot present ourselves as an example to the world, we cannot plausibly claim to be morally superior to our enemies, if
we stoop to their level - or even if we merely use their behavior to
justify human rights abuses of our own. By so blatantly violating our
most sacred political values, we have reduced our foreign policy to one of naked self-interest, leaving ourselves without allies in the quagmire we foolishly created, and giving non-Americans little reason to support or tolerate our global presence.
It is time to resume Congressional oversight, to investigate these
heartbreaking and alarming allegations and put things to right. If it can be proven, sanctioning torture must be an impeachable offense. The evidence is there for those of us who have the courage to look at it. As an American citizen who lives part time in Asia, people regularly associate me with the actions of my government without regard for my personal beliefs or political opinions. I think it is fairly clear what has been happening; therefore I say that nothing short of impeachment will restore my sense of honor as an American citizen. But is there any chance the new Congress -- or our corporate press so dependent on advertising - has the conscience and the spine to demonstrate that we, as a nation, are truly committed to the values enshrined in the United States Constitution?
Posted by SP on Sat 13 Jan 2007 at 10:27 PM