White house goes after Fox News

[jessicasimpson]

BTW...you seem to spend an AWFUL lot of time watching Fox. C'mon, you secretly like Glen Beck. Admit it.

You only have to watch fox for about 15 mins in prime time before you can see evidence of Bias

[I_luv_saber]

The only Beck worth listening to is Jeff Beck

Most sensible thing in this thread, if not the entire Politics forum, I've ever heard.

[pigeonmeister]

I would have added Beck but, perhaps unfairly, I can't listen to him now I know he is a Scientologist.

[pigeonmeister]

Sorry pal, I'm not willing to sacrifice our guys for their civilians. No way, no how.

A similar conclusion, though one based on actual experience and strategic clarity, was expressed by the first US officials to resign due to the sheer futility of the Afghan misadventure.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21683575/M...ver-Afghan-War

[migopod]

I would have added Beck but, perhaps unfairly, I can't listen to him now I know he is a Scientologist.

Eerie. I went exactly there and reconsidered for exactly the same reason.

[lindajdunn]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...Tabs%3Darticle


To point out that this network is different, that it is intensely politicized, that it inhabits an alternate reality defined by an imaginary conflict between noble heartland patriots and devious liberals—to be aware of these things is not the act of a scheming dictatorial personality. It is the obvious conclusion drawn by anybody with eyes and ears.

[jeff]

Great find, Linda. Outstanding. A must-read for anyone who cares anything about the topic of this thread.

One of the things that makes this so powerful is that the WSJ is a conservative publication, basically "the adult voice of the Republican party". But they're not irresponsible demagogues, which distinguishes them from Fox, Savage, etc.

Next stop on this train: the inevitable smearing the author and WSJ will be subjected to.

[pigeonmeister]

Good article- I know this is an opinion piece, but the WSJ is hardly a bastion of measured, non-hysterical, analysis.

[keith]

Good article- I know this is an opinion piece, but the WSJ is hardly a bastion of measured, non-hysterical, analysis.

That particular OpEd writer is the WSJs token liberal .

On another note the day before this article there was a piece citing the British campaign in the Malay emergency as an example of successful counter insurgency (with no caveats).

[pigeonmeister]

Well I would add a few caveats, at least if people are attempting to use it as a viable transferable model in Afghanistan.

The British did do a pretty good job, but pretty much all the variables pointed towards a favourable result (the exact opposite is the case in Afghanistan).

1. By far and away the most important factor was the ethnic composition of the Communist Malayan insurgents- almost exclusively ethnically Chinese (a much maligned minority in Malaya at the time).The majority ethnic Malays and to a lesser extent the ethnic Indians equated a communist takeover as a Chinese takeover.

Ergo local participation in the counter-insurgency was strong. On the other hand, when the Chinese population were holed up and isolated in Boer war style camps, nobody cared; they were Chinese.

2. The British colonial presence in the Malay Peninsula began in 1786. We therefore had many people who were intimately familar with the area, the peoples, and spoke the language. Many of the pre-War administrators returned to Malaya.

3. Even the most green British conscript soldiers could tell the difference between Straits Chinese and Malays.

4. The British had cooperated with the Malay Communist Party during WW2- so they knew their SOP. Now you can make the case that there is a similar situation with the US-Mujahadeen alliance during the Soviet war. But actually, US aid was exclusively delivered by the Pakistani ISI (hardly any Americans were ever on the ground in Afghanistan)

5. Malaya was in an era before 24-hour global news, in a far more violence tolerant world just after WW2.

[jeff]

Viking News weighs in:
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/vikingnews.html

[Bayou Bum]

Great find, Linda. Outstanding. A must-read for anyone who cares anything about the topic of this thread.

One of the things that makes this so powerful is that the WSJ is a conservative publication, basically "the adult voice of the Republican party". But they're not irresponsible demagogues, which distinguishes them from Fox, Savage, etc.

Next stop on this train: the inevitable smearing the author and WSJ will be subjected to.

I'm glad that you are willing to accept all opinion articles of the WSJ as factual. There have been many opinion articles in the WSJ that I have not quoted due to the usual rant that opinions don't count as fact. I am glad to see that everyone here agrees that all articles printed by the WSJ are credible. Or is this another example of credibility dependent upon your agreement with the opinion?

[lindajdunn]

I'm glad that you are willing to accept all opinion articles of the WSJ as factual.

Excuse me, but your Troll [tm] is showing. You might want to pull up your pants.

[jeff]

Heh. The WSJ article must get under his skin.

BB - the question you put to me is wrong: opinions are worth bringing up, as long as they're presented as such, and with the reasoning (a concept you may have heard of) behind the opinion. Pathetic, obvious attempt to make some point only valid to yourself with your sticking "all" in there, as if the WSJ printing a sensible article means you have to agree with everything it says. So, you only believe in being a dittohead - and if you agree with some source one time, you have to agree with everything? Well, the rest of us are more advanced than that.

So now you have to say whether you reject this WSJ article. After all, you just said you wanted to quote from them before, so YOU accept them as an authority.and by your logic if you agree with one article from them you have to agree with ALL of them. So, what's it gonna be, BB?

[I_luv_saber]

I would have added Beck but, perhaps unfairly, I can't listen to him now I know he is a Scientologist.

...

You had to ruin it for me, didn't you?

[Bayou Bum]

Well, the rest of us are more advanced than that.

Not really. Take for example your belief in the gospel according to Obama.

dittohead?

The White House Blog

Reality Check: AP Story Misleads on Recovery Act Job Reporting
Posted by Ed DeSeve on October 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM EDT

Reality Check

You may have seen a misleading Associated Press story this morning on the accuracy of Recovery Act job reports that were posted earlier this month on Recovery.gov. On the same day that we learned that the economy has begun to grow again for the first time in over year, the very critics who opposed economic rescue from the beginning are now trying use this misleading story to twist the truth about the early success of the Recovery Act.

I guess the Associated Press is biased also. I wish Obama would stop whining about everyone disagreeing with him. What a crybaby!

[jeff]

Not really. Take for example your belief in the gospel according to Obama. dittohead?

A belief that is entirely in your imagination.

I guess the Associated Press is biased also. I wish Obama would stop whining about everyone disagreeing with him. What a crybaby!

Speaking of crybabies, you chickened out and couldn't answer the question (oh, not like you haven't done that before!) So, you love the WSJ - don't you agree with that article?

[Slim]

Viking News weighs in:
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/vikingnews.html

Al Jazeera is already in the white house press pool, so the holocaust deniers are already represented. But they're ok. Certainly not as bad a Fox.

[keith]

Al Jazeera is already in the white house press pool, so the holocaust deniers are already represented. But they're ok. Certainly not as bad a Fox.

Fascinating contention. Care to provide some evidence?

[Slim]

Fascinating contention. Care to provide some evidence?

Look it up if you care.