The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Galvin Opinion asks what is the rush

Fellow blogger the Galvin Opinion posts that the liberal media seemed very eager to declare the a left-winger in Honduras to be the winner in the presidential election. Pre-election polls showed the more conservative Sosa leading over left-wing Zelaya but exit polls showed Zelaya ahead. Within hours world media was declaring Zelaya the winner before final tallies were in and before Sosa conceded.

With South America forming a strong Castro/Chavez communist axis, one must wonder why these news outlets are so eager to see another leftist elected. Just what is it that draws the media to communist figures like Castro, Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and even "Uncle Joe" Stalin? The South America situation is becoming a serious situation that does not bode well for the US, especially if the trend works its way up to Mexico. So why does the media seem to be rooting for it?

Some of the news media rushing the gun are:

ABCNews

CNN

BBC




13 Comments:

  • At 12:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    No matter who does it, it is irresponsible. Yes FOX is in that mix for 2000. I will say that lessons should have been learned after 2000 not to call elections based on exit polls. Yet these bogeymen did it. My question is what is their rush, knowing the issues from 2000?

     
  • At 9:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Just the journalistic credo:

    If it bleeds, it leads.

    Everyone wants to say they said it first, they had the scoop, etc. Total BS>

     
  • At 12:28 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Well, the media is suspiciously slow when it does not fit their agenda.

     
  • At 1:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Agreed. It took the New York Times 2 years to issue an apology for the sloppy pre-war coverage and reporting.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    The NYT hardly has an agenda in agreement with Bush, so your snarky comment cannot be agreement with my statement.

    The "apology" by the NYT is not an apology for wrong doing. They are remourseful that they printed something against their agenda and feel the political climate will now allow them to try and reverse that without looking too foolish. Sorry, they look foolish.

     
  • At 4:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Typical paranoia of a liberal media conspiracy.

    "Well, the media is suspiciously slow when it does not fit their agenda."

    You made that a partisan statement, when money and influence know no party. The apology was for being irresponsible as a media source, for buying the lie and printing falsehoods without fact-checking.

    You rant about the media all the time and say that they're supposed to educate the masses. I agree. You say you honor the truth, but if the truth gets inconvenient for you, you say it hurts the troops and that people should stop digging around and asking questions and calling for investigations.

     
  • At 10:58 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "You say you honor the truth, but if the truth gets inconvenient for you, you say it hurts the troops and that people should stop digging around and asking questions and calling for investigations"

    That is nonsense. I have yet to hear any proven truth that has anything to do with all of the controversy surrounding Iraq. I have heard a lot of theories and speculation, but nothing proven.

    If there were some unethical or even criminal action behind the start of the war, I would want it found out and dealt with. In the current state of affairs, I do not believe any investigation has anything to do with truth. It has everything to do with '06 and '08.

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "If there were some unethical or even criminal action behind the start of the war, I would want it found out and dealt with. In the current state of affairs, I do not believe any investigation has anything to do with truth. It has everything to do with '06 and '08."

    If it weren't for the recent statements of Powell, Scrowcroft, Wilkerson, the 9/11 Commission, and a whole host of other Republican and non-partisan sources, you could easily argue your belief. I still think it would be a misguided belief and betrays an unreasonable and illogical gut-level distrust of all Dems (and some Republicans), but so be it. You are free to believe whatever you want, but why would that belief be any reason (to a true truth-seeker) for shutting down or stonewalling full investigations into the genesis of this war? It is well documented and proven that Bush administration statements were misleading. They had caveats, warnings and conflicting reports from international agencies as well as the US intelligence community, but they sold the idea to us as rock solid and a "slam dunk." Why? Don't you want to know why 2200 Americans (and counting) are dead and $300 billion (and counting) is gone from our coffers? I think any reasonable American should want to know the answers to those questions.

    Americans and Congress would have never approved this war solely to oust Hussein just because he was a despot.

    Galvin Opinion should have asked "what is the rush to war?" a long time ago.

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Thomas said…

    Funny, you will never hear liberals admit how Fox News was the first network to retract Florida from Bush's column.

     
  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Thomas said…

    As for the commentary about rushing into military action while giving the country misleading facts - I admit, the liberals are right on that one... For instance, the following was particularly egregious...

    "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

    Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

    OH BY THE WAY, IT WAS BILL CLINTON WHO SAID IT!!

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html (link courtesy of CNN, the Clinton News Network, for those who are afraid of Fox News)

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Thomas, welcome and thanks for posting. My time is short lately and news has been a little slow. Will probably pick up after the new year.

    Whatever can be said about the decision to go to war, I don't think it can be said that Bush lied or misled without including Clinton and many Dems. You can look in other posts where Anonymous has tried to convince me otherwise.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Anonymous ydd said…

    No need to convince you people of anything. You're a lost cause.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home