I hope you don't really believe that, and are just using a metaphor for how Fox News operates as a whole. "Edited for clarity" is an official copyediting phrase when writing transcripts. It means they took out all the "uh, er, soo--I mean, see..." crap that normal people say. If you've ever read a real unedited transcript, they can be pretty hard to understand.

If you're just being facetious about how Fox News chooses what they say as compared to other news stations, fine. But don't imply that they're literally changing the words coming out of their own spokespersons in their transcripts, that doesn't even make sense.

It's not a left-wing media conspiracy, it never has been. It is simply the natural, unavoidable bias of reporters doing what they believe is right--it is a statistical fact that a large majority of journalists vote democratic, just like it is a statistical fact that security in Iraq has not improved. Nobody at BBC thinks to themselves, "Oooh, yes, today we're gonna really ream that Cheney guy!" and nobody at Fox News says, "Yes, we all know this war was a complete mistake, but let's release a few stories pretending we believe otherwise."

We're dealing with what these journalists truly believe to be right in their hearts, and it is impossible for that bias not to come out one way or another. That's why we have multiple news sources.

BigV, you seem to have not been watching the news when a greater percentage of Iraqis turned out at the polls than normally do in the US despite the threat of violence.

The notion that some people don't "want" their government to operate with the consent of the governed is abhorrent to me, and often racist. The consent of the governed is the centerpiece of representative government and is the only legitimate source of sovereignty. The source of Saddam's sovereignty was tyranny -- he had the biggest guns and the greatest will to use them. I don't believe that anyone who does that has the right to claim sovereignty. No that doesn't mean we can just walk in and use our bigger guns to flip them -- but to deeply respect that version of sovereignty just means that more tyrannies will arise.

In a way, this argument is as pointless as one about religion, because our most basic views about what our country is and what it represents are on opposite poles. One side thinks that America stands for everything that's right about the world -- freedom to say what you want, believe what you want, try for whatever goal you set for yourself. The other side believes any action by America is inherently wrong. That's before any real facts come out -- at the outset of any world event, half of our population already believes we're the bad guys. You're not going to ever convince those people of anything. Their model of responsible, fair, just government is the United Nations.

And I'm not disputing that democracy has to come from within a country. I do dispute that a democratic movement with America as its wingman is a bad thing. In our own revolution, we had a "coalition of the bribed" helping us as well. And doing it for internally selfish reasons. But we're free today nonetheless. In fact, that's an interesting point -- if all those big bad European meanies with their organized armies could come into a second-world country and back our sorry militias with their big guns, why can't we do the same in Iraq? I can hear the leftists in France in 1780 -- "we're only there for the timber and potash! We just want to establish our own frontier outposts to trade furs and get rich while our children staaaaarve!"

mrnoodle, your comment about political views being on opposite poles reminds me that you haven't taken the Political Compass self test. I would be really curious to know where you stand. I encourage you to take it and post the results in that thread.

Good grief. Now you're just being stupid.

No, I'm being realistic. There are kneejerks on both sides, but there is a sizeable portion of the population that immediately views ANY foreign policy stance taken by the US as some kind of power/oil/money grab that treads on the little guy while lining the coffers of the privileged. The only exception to this in the last 30 years is Bill Clinton, and he was so ineffectual from a foreign policy standpoint as to have never held the office. He showed up for photo ops and otherwise stayed firmly on the fence whenever possible (if Kofi gets jailed, his position is ready-made for Bill). I'm at work, don't make me go looking for the scores of thousands of newspaper/magazine articles that support my claim.

I'll take the test, but I'm already leery of the weighting of it....
I can already see where this is going. If someone in a corporation profits, then humanity suffers? If humanity is served, it can never be through the model of capitalism (which involves so many of those big mean corporations)?

Sigh. I'll bite. I'll edit and put my results in this post.

edit -- economic left/right = .63
social libertarian/authoritarian = .56

Dot's in the first square to the NE of the axes.


But really, some of those questions. :eyebrow:

That score is not what I was expecting. According to this test, you and lookout123 are the centrists of this forum. I guess it's all about perspective. From where I stand, you seem ultra-conservative and authoritarian. Maybe that says more about me than about you.

make sure you post your results in the political compass thread. we tend to revisit that from time to time.

And me makes three. Somebody has to be considered a radical moderate.

just curious Glatt - where didyou expect me to land? i've been getting curious about how other cellarites view my personal political/social leanings.

Can you criticize your government? Is it allowed during war? If you question, are you a wacko?
Is questioning of authority a bad thing?
I thought it was a pretty patriotic endeavor. And historically, it has been prudent.

As a moderate, liberal, and yet patriotic individual, here is some of what I think I understand:

Iraq posed a complex threat to us and the world. Iraq offered strategic political and economic options. Saddam threatened to kill Bush, Sr.

Iraq was not directly or even closely linked, however, to bin Laden and 9/11.
The operations in Afghanistan suffered from the diversion of Iraq. The taliban are still active, its still volitile, and bin Laden is hanging out elsewhere, recruiting. Now there is an al queda link to Iraq.

The political time was right to readdress Iraq.
Iraq might have had weapons. We didnt believe that the inspectors were right. The intelligence we had was not correct. Some expert opinions were not heard. The Downing St memo proves nothing, but adds to a larger image of sausage making.

The Whitehouse did not make a strong case for war, they made strange claims and played fear. Blair did a better job. I need clearer justification to not be alarmed by this stance that will spend US lives.

The administration did not have a smart enough strategy, has tried to adjust, but blew some great opportunities. It did not comprehend the complexities and did not listen to military advice that warned of exactly the many problems that occured- too few to secure peace, lack of training, equiptment, insurgency.

Corporate money has been made. The Government is in debt.
We have not been attacked since, but we are no safer.

Yup yup, we wind up with a similar narrative.

It was fundamentally a justifiable idea, maybe even a good idea, if not absolutely necessary, and may still wind up working out, and I prefer to be optimistic about it;

However, it was TERRIBLE idea if done POORLY... and the fact that we're so far out already and still wondering what the true outcome will be just doesn't speak well to it all.

Add onto that the administration's basic inability to communicate. It goes beyond the comic take on W's speechifying. My own pet theory is that Bush's previous speechwriter Karen Hughes was the only one who could truly finagle W's inarticulation into a true positive. They don't communicate well and they rarely get their own point across with the media. They treat the media as the enemy. So eventually the common point of view is that there's some sort of fix, because the administration gets all defensive, doesn't get it's message across, and seems to only care enough to make sure 51% of the public agrees.

It seems to be, for the last 4 years, as the Texans say, It has "done been done poorly". This has zapped my natural inclinations towards optimism here.

We differ in that I think the unilateral invasion, the poorly presented and informed and manned shock and awe, was a bad idea from the get go. Its continued from there.

Again, GW's articulation aside, the Bush Admininstration's secretiveness, isolation, and blatant media manipulation (buys, photo ops, diversions, staged events), communicates mostly that they have a lot to hide.

Jeez...I leave the thread for 24 hours and there are more posts than I can reasonably respond to. So, I'm going to try and respond cogently to as much as I can (okay, to what I want to).
My first problem is the way that the war was justified, is prosecuted and continues coveys the message to the world is the ends justify the means. That is not an acceptable foreign policy. It is ultimately self-destructive. The United States is supposed to be the 'shining beacon on the hill.' Instead, we're the searchlight at the gulag. Terrific.
More specifically, the justifications for the war were twisted, folded, mutilated, and spindled to fit ideological goals. Yes, there were non-WMD reasonings for invading Iraq. But frankly, none of them mattered. None of them gave the US any legal basis for the invasion of a sovereign nation.
Further, the prosecution of the war was completely deluded. Rumsfeld overrode his generalss recommendations for overwhelming numbers. There weren't enough 'civil' soldiers (folks who could speak the native languages, MP's/police, Corp of Engineers, etc). The State Department's post-action planning was completely ignored. For example, no military units occupied or even protected hospitals, power stations or sub-stations, or other vital, civilian locations (like the museums). Why not? If you, as an invader and aren't planning on rebuilding the country from the ground up, those are critical sectors of administration that were left to be looted and rendered useless.
Ultimately, all of this points out something fundamental: tremendous political ability (i.e., they're great at spin) but horrible management.
So, back to my original question. Why is no one in the mainstream pointing this out?