Zogby Poll: 53% of Americans Support Impeachment of Bush

[Noah]

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

[Heather]

First of all, thats a big if.

And secondly, thats not an impeachable offense. The President as the commander in chief, The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Uh, he did that.

Impeachable offenses....The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

He didnt break the law, or go outside his powers of the Executive Branch. So, the idea of impeachment, is a stretch, to say the least.

[Ashlyn]

Regardless of if it could actually happen, the fact that the majority of Americans would support it speaks volumes.

[Noah]

Exactly.

so much for the... what's the word??... oh yeah... MANDATE.


here are a few of those impeachable offences you were speaking of:

President Bush fabricated evidence regarding Iraq's threat to the United States in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;

President Bush violated various sections of the United States Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

President Bush committed crimes relating to "bribery and coercion of individuals and governments;"

President Bush has concealed "information vital to public discussion and informed judgment;"

President Bush has caused or is responsible for assassinations, torture, and indefinite detentions such as the Camp X-Ray, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay and other such matters including the persecution of U.S. and non-U.S. Muslims.

President Bush has violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution on numerous occassions with the prohibitive measures on any protests or marches by the people of the United States.

[Heather]

President Bush fabricated evidence regarding Iraq's threat to the United States in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;

President Bush violated various sections of the United States Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

President Bush committed crimes relating to "bribery and coercion of individuals and governments;"

President Bush has concealed "information vital to public discussion and informed judgment;"

President Bush has caused or is responsible for assassinations, torture, and indefinite detentions such as the Camp X-Ray, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay and other such matters including the persecution of U.S. and non-U.S. Muslims.

President Bush has violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution on numerous occassions with the prohibitive measures on any protests or marches by the people of the United States.

And where's your proof of this? Because if he had commited any of the above, an indictment would have gone out, just like Clinton was served with an indictment. But, nothing has been done, or even hinted at being done.

And, Ashlyn, Im sorry, but how can you say that speaks volumes? We're talking about something that could never happen. Its like asking Americans if they would support a monarchy ruling this country.

[Noah]

Its like asking Americans if they would support a monarchy ruling this country.

Not really... the question, actually, was about whether Americans would support an impeachment of George Bush. Something that could quite easily happen, given the facts.

How does it speak volumes, you ask? After the 2000 election, all we heard was "mandate this.. mandate that... well there's your MANDATE, America!"

Now, it seems, that the majority of Americans, 53%, would support an impeachment of George W. Bush. That's a pretty hefty chunk of this country. So, essentially, more people would support an impeachment of Bush, than those who would oppose it.

I don't know how much more straightforward you can get.


-----

Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by withholding information and by supplying information Bush should have known to be incorrect in his States of the Union speeches. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. Martha Stewart recently went to prison for violating this law by making false statements to investigators. Caspar Weinberger was indicted under this law in relation to his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, but he escaped prosecution by being pardoned by Bush's father.

-"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/200

Reality: Not a drop of any chemical weapon has been found anywhere in Iraq


-“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq


-“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq


-"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.


-"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.


-"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

Reality: Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there-IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003


"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

Reality: “The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."-IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003


"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Reality: UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

-----

The Downing Street Memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html) - The memo which I have mentioned on numerous occaisions, that documents the Bush administration's plan to distort, "fix" intelligence information around their plan to enter Iraq, and mislead congress, the media and the American people to gain support for an Iraq invasion.


phew... is that enough proof??

[Heather]

I'll be waiting. :)

[Ol'blueyes]

if 53% of Americans want him impeached, how did he win the election this year?

[Andrea]

I think the title of this thread is a little misleading, with all due respect. =) The majority of Americans would be for the impeachment of ANY president who was definitively found to have committed, y'know, impeachable offenses.

So far, President Bush is not such an individual. Should the day ever arrive that he were definitively proved to have committed impeachable offenses, I would be all for impeachment too. I would say the same of any president; I'd wager most Americans would.

That's certainly not the same as saying "53% of Americans want President Bush impeached now!"

[Ashlyn]

And, Ashlyn, Im sorry, but how can you say that speaks volumes? We're talking about something that could never happen. Its like asking Americans if they would support a monarchy ruling this country.

The fact that Americans would support it if it could happen says something to me. They don't really trust him or see him as this strong guy anymore. He let us down.

[Ol'blueyes]

He might have let you down, but he hasn't let me down yet. My state nor my country has been attacked since 9/11.

[Andrea]

But that's not what the poll was asking at all. It was asking IF the President did somethign illegal, would they support holding him accountable for it?

1200 people is not exactly an exhaustive study either, mind you. =) And 53% isn't exactly a landslide majority.

[Heather]

Bridget, I applaud you!!!! :bow:

He hasnt let me done, either. And as long as he continues to take the fight to our enemies, he wont.

[Ashlyn]

His only job is not to keep us from being attacked.

It's sad that we see success as us not being attacked by another country, because we've become the attacker.

[Ol'blueyes]

I'll ask again, when did we actually "kill innocent iraqis?" Show proof that it isn't just car bombs.

thanks heather:)

[marianne]

Well, what do you consider to be an innocent Iraqi?

[Ashlyn]

US and British military officials insisted throughout the war that their forces did all they could to avoid civilian casualties. But it has become clear since the fighting ended that bombs did go astray, that targets were chosen in error, and that as US troops pushed rapidly north toward the capital they killed thousands of civilians from the air and from the ground.



A U.S. military helicopter fired into a crowd of civilians who had surrounded a burning Army armored vehicle in the capital, killing 13 people, said Saad Amili, spokesman for the Health Ministry. Among those killed was a Palestinian journalist reporting from the scene for the Arab satellite network al-Arabiya.

The U.S. military said it was trying to scatter looters who were attempting to make off with ammunition and pieces of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which had been hit by a car bomb early in the morning on Haifa Street, a troublesome north-south artery west of the Tigris River.

But witnesses, including a Reuters cameraman who was filming the al-Arabiya journalist when he was shot, disputed that account and said the crowd was peaceful, Reuters reported.
From here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15899-2004Sep12.html).



A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.
From here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm).


Baghdad - A U.S. fighter jet bombed a crowd gathered around a burned Humvee on the edge of a western provincial capital, killing 25 people, including 18 children, hospital officials and family members said Monday. The military said the raid targeted insurgents planting a bomb for new attacks.

In all, residents and hospital workers said 39 civilians and at least 13 armed insurgents were killed there in a day of U.S. airstrikes Sunday in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, a Sunni Arab region with a heavy insurgent presence.
From here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101805J.shtml).


Just a few examples of the civilian deaths that are either our fault our our fault by default.

[Heather]

Then maybe you should be blaming the terrorists, who have come into Iraq from orther countries, and are the ones who are killing INNOCENT Iraqis. Because guess what, its not us.

Interetsting quote...

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

[Ashlyn]

Only the dead have scene the end of a crime-ridden society, as well. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to abolish crime.

[Heather]

What do war and crime have in common? I mean, really?

[Ashlyn]

Both of them can cause the end of life, destruction, devestation and pain. Both of them are negative things in society. Although war CAN have good results, nobody can honestly argue that it wouldn't be better to handle things diplomatically, and therefore, without the loss of life, destruction of property, etc.

What I was trying to say is that that quote doesn't really say much. So, war may be a constant in society. That doesn't make it right. Crime is also just such a constant in society. Both are things we should work to end, even if they will sadly always exist.

[marianne]

What do war and crime have in common? I mean, really?

Well.. you think that war and abortion have things in common, so I wouldn't have thought you'd think it would be that out there to compare it to crime.

And now I can't really speak on Ashlyn's behalf, but I think maybe she wasn't comparing the two direct, more like what you said about seeing the end to things by dying. That was what they had in common because noone has seen the end to neither.

[Noah]

Y'know.. one would think that sooner or later I would simply wise up to the fact that I can sit here, produce mountains of evidence and factual information and still, somehow, it manages to get ignored.

I make all these insane, outlandish claims.... and at the same time I manage to back this up with factual information that manages to get ignored. That's one thing that has remained a constant with this administration. An outright, blatant disregard of the facts. We're living in a fantasy land... thought it seems more an more Americans are refusing to drink the kool-aid.

Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by withholding information and by supplying information Bush should have known to be incorrect in his States of the Union speeches. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. Martha Stewart recently went to prison for violating this law by making false statements to investigators. Caspar Weinberger was indicted under this law in relation to his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, but he escaped prosecution by being pardoned by Bush's father.

-"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/200

Reality: Not a drop of any chemical weapon has been found anywhere in Iraq


-“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq


-“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq


-"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.


-"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.


-"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

Reality: Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there-IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003


"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

Reality: “The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."-IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003


"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Reality: UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

-----

The Downing Street Memo - The memo which I have mentioned on numerous occaisions, that documents the Bush administration's plan to distort, "fix" intelligence information around their plan to enter Iraq, and mislead congress, the media and the American people to gain support for an Iraq invasion.


So, there's your proof. Could it be any more plain and obvious?! But, go on... ignore the facts... and keep drinkin' that kool-aid. Don't let the thinking people of the world ruin your party. You can just go on polluting the air and this planet that we live on... keep consuming, and using, and trusting the people who are systematically dismantling this country and everything it has ever stood for.

The time for honoring these liars and thieves will soon come to an end. Until then, the innocent, and the needy will continue to be the ones to pay. So go on out and live it up!

[Ol'blueyes]

that is true I really do love Kool-Aid. But the Kool-aid man himself, very scary.

[Noah]

He's a gigantic bowl of punch who will come busting straight through your wall and into your living room at any given moment. This guy is a menace to society and should be put away.

[Ol'blueyes]

haha, NO YOU GO FIX THAT WALL BEFORE MY DAD COMES ON AND BEATS ME WITH A BELT. HE IS VERY TOP HEAVY. I DON'T LIKE WHEN JUICE WEARS TIGHTS!

[Jon]

I will just say this in regards to your "facts" Noah. If so many Americans "hate" Bush and are disgusted with him as president, then they too would take all these so-called facts and find a way to impeach him, wouldn't they? But have we heard about anyone actually forming a group to impeach him? We have not. Other than the few single people who can talk the talk about impeaching Bush but would never walk the walk and actually try. And why don't they try? Because there are no real evidence that supports the impeachment of Bush.

[Ol'blueyes]

Yeah the only person I've heard actually want to impeach him, is well Barbara Streisand and she scares me.

[Andrea]

Y'know what scares me more than Barbra? People who think she is a valid bastion of political opinion :D

nobody can honestly argue that it wouldn't be better to handle things diplomaticallyWell, who can argue with that? Of course the best course of action would be to handle things diplomatically. That is presuming, of course, that the other side is open to compromise and diplomacy. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein's regime, along with most extremist Islamic terrorist factions, have zero interest in finding ways to live peacefully with Western society. Where is the happy medium between "You shouldn't kill us all, y'know" and "Seriously, you should all die right now"? =)

[Noah]

I will just say this in regards to your "facts" Noah. If so many Americans "hate" Bush and are disgusted with him as president, then they too would take all these so-called facts and find a way to impeach him, wouldn't they? But have we heard about anyone actually forming a group to impeach him? We have not. Other than the few single people who can talk the talk about impeaching Bush but would never walk the walk and actually try. And why don't they try? Because there are no real evidence that supports the impeachment of Bush.



I don't remember implying that so many americans "hated" Bush. I don't believe I even used the word "hate". Would you like "proof" of these "facts". Why don't you use that little internet machine you're sitting in front of. Instead of clinging to your illusions, why not use it for research and seek out "fact" and "truth" for yourself?? Did you happend to read the Downing Street Memo. Yeah, that little thingy you run your mouse over.... you can click it. It takes you to a page with words.... those words make up sentences and you read them.

If you took the time to actually read this, perhaps you would see. Hell, if you want to, you can copy and past "Downing Street Memo" into google yourself. No, wait... in fact, I'll do it for you CLICK! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Downing+Street+Memo%22&btnG=Google+Search) there ya go, chief. Why don't you have a look for yourself.

And y'know, contrary to what you may think.... I didin't pull all of those "facts" out of thin air. I researched. You may want to try it some time. You'll be blown away at the wealth of information and knowledge there is out there. There are also these "books" that you can go out and read... you may be thinking.... "yeah, yeah.... some LIBERAL propaganda that some idiot made up" But, you know what... when you read these books, you can even look up this information to back up what those idiots claim.

I make these wild claims, and you all preach... "yeah, where's your FACTS to back that up". Well, there they are. Right there in black and white... presented to you.. hell, you didn't even have to look for yourself. But, it would behoove you to look for yourself. Don't trust some idiot over the internet. GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF. Then base your opinions.

You want to know WHY people don't find this stuff out for themselves. I don't want to make any assumptions, but it seems that much like yourself, these people choose not to seek out the truth for themselves... they choose to hold on to their illusions for fear that they may be wrong.... for fear that the people they have supported may not be as honest as they thought. It's a scary thought, yes, but what's more scary is being in the dark and not knowing the truth. That's because if you would like the truth, you must dig a little deeper than what is force fed to you by major media conglomerates. You ever stop to think that perhaps what they brodcast is motivated a little more by ad revenue than by a pursuit of good journalism?? Go figure. It takes work.

Don't belittle my claims as some moronic, partisan attack. Whether it's Clinton, or Al Gore or John Kerry, I expect the leader of this country to act in the best interest of its people. I expect that leader to be honest, and straightforward, no matter what party he represents.

And y'know... I have yet to see you present any facts to back up what you say. Please, by all means, present us with facts that Bush did NOT mislead the American people. Present me with factual information stating that the Downing Street Memo was simply made up. That the UK Times knowingly published a document that was a complete and total fabrication. Present us all with evidence that, in fact, WMD's were found in Iraq... stockpiles of them.. with vehicles in which to release these weapons on the American people and the rest of the world. Present me with factual information stating that Saddam was behind 9/11, or that he funded the attacks, or had ANY part in those attacks. PLEASE, indulge us.

[Andrea]

I don't remember implying that so many americans "hated" Bush. I don't believe I even used the word "hate". Would you like "proof" of these "facts". Why don't you use that little internet machine you're sitting in front of.You know, it's funny, but I just Googled "I would like proof of Noah's facts and also that so many Americans 'hate' Bush" and didn't come up with much.

HEE. Come on, y'all had that one coming. ;)

[Quinton]

You know, it's funny, but I just Googled "I would like proof of Noah's facts and also that so many Americans 'hate' Bush" and didn't come up with much.

HEE. Come on, y'all had that one coming. ;)
I did the same thing and among the results, I found THIS (http://67.15.59.136/forums/printthread.php?t=16163) site.

[Faith]

lmao :lol:

Y'all should just admit, you thrive on arguing!!!

[Kari]

It's funny...
When I open the newspaper, or listen to the radio or watch TV, I get a lot of those proofs and facts over here....maybe our entire media is corrupted...

[Faith]

The media is definately corrupt :)

That's why I love it ;)

[Andrea]

The media isn't corrupt but it's a fact that it's filled with liberals - oh, heck, y'all are too interesting and now I'm late for church, I'll have to post about this later ;)

[Faith]

The media isn't corrupt but it's a fact that it's filled with liberals

lol I hope so, because that sounds terrible! :lol:

Of course the media is corrupt... it's filled with propaganda!

Propaganda, I say!! :hippy:

[Kari]

And conspiracy theories :lol:

[Faith]

lol plenty of those too :lol:

The worst is the editorial -

We at the Sun say, YOU ARE WRONG, TONY! You suck!

Okay, that's nice Mr Editor... noone cares :)

[Kari]

:lol: The newspaper I read is actually conservative...they still love saying those weird things about the non-existent mass destruction weapons.

[Noah]

The media isn't corrupt but it's a fact that it's filled with liberals -


A few quick questions- If the media is full of liberals then why, after word got out that President Clinton tried marijuana, the President's drug use was a fixture in papers and on the news... he couldn't escape it. The media kept pounding away at this and would not let it die.

Conversely, during the presidential election of 2000, word of George W. Bush's DUI's, and his cocaine use got out to the public. But, for some reason these topics were a taboo that the media could not touch. Sure, you heard a little bit about it here and there, but for the most part, the media didn't touch it and left the whole issue alone. - Why is that, I wonder?? It seems to me that habitual coaine use and being arrested for driving while intoxicated are a lot more serious than trying marijuana once in college.

Then, on the other hand, there was the whole misquotation of Al Gore and the "I invented the internet" thing. When, in fact, what Al Gore said was that he took the initiative in proposing congress fund and research the military computer network 'Arpanet' that later evolved into the internet we have today. A complete and total misquotation that the media, again, would not let die. They just kept pounding and pounding at this... why?

And, here's a little tidbit for you: Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92).


I'd absolutely love proof that the media in this country has a liberal bias. Y'know, I'll go ahead and say that I would absolutely love if the media really did have a liberal bias. For the word liberal simply means marked by generosity; given or provided in a generous and openhanded way. So, for the media to have a generous and openhanded bias- hey, I'm all for it. It's just unfortunate that it isn't the case.

You can't honestly say that the media in this country is not corrupt. The major media outlets in this country are run by massively huge corporate conglomerates. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN- what runs these media networks is not the preservation of journalistic integrity and the pursuit of bringing the truth to the masses- it's ad revenue. It's whatever stories will make advertisers happy and bring in more viewers.

I don't know if the name Terri Schiavo, or Natalee Holloway rings a bell, (that girl who went missing in Aruba a few months ago), or how about Michael Jackson?? But answer me how, if the media is liberally biased and are hell bent on destroying George Bush, why in the days after Natalee Holloway went missing, we had to have round-the-clock coverage, reoporters ALL OVER Aruba, giving us the latest on how Aruba police forces didn't know what to do, or how to find her... and how the brothers were being questioned, and then how the brothers changed their stories, and they were arrested, but then let go, but then brought back in for questioning.... why would the media be in such a frenzy over this when there is a WAR going on?! There is a war going on and people are dying, but we need 24 hour coverage of the Natalee Holloway abduction?! If the media's goal was to destroy George Bush then why wouldn't they be showing graphic pictures of violence in Iraq?? Oh, I know why... because the Natalee Holloway abduction brings in MORE viewers, and that means more ad revenue from advertisers! The same goes for the Michael Jackson case.... why 'o why do we need reporters standing OUTSIDE the courthouse to give us all the latest on the friggin' Michael Jackson case?! I don't care! There's a war going on right now, there are REAL things happening in the world! But, of course, the possibility of Michael Jackson sleeping with little kids and all of that is SO controversial, people can't get enough of it. So, of course, the media focuses on that... because, again, this brings in more ad revenue.

Or how about the fact that the media didn't even question the "intelligence" coming out of the White House before we invaded Iraq. The media was used by the Bush administration and they bought in to it without even asking questions. George Bush himself said that the intelligence was faulty. So, why didn't the media even question what was coming from the White House?! If the liberal bias was there again, I would have expected the media to be digging up the truth and reporting all the dirt they could on these guys, wouldn't you?? But, not... the media rolled over, and bought into the propaganda. They are the lapdog of the White House. They take the propaganda, don't question or research it, and shove it down our throats. This is why I have no respect for the American media.

Maybe I'm wrong... if you could enlighten me, that would be great.

[Faith]

That's a point... we heard a tonne over here about Clinton's affair but that's the first I have heard about Bush' drug use...

[Andrea]

It is a fact that the majority of reporters - 68% I think - voted for Kerry in 2004, whereas less than 25% voted for Bush. If it's the case that most reporters' work is informed by their political views, then it's probably likely that about 3 out of 4 reporters have a liberal bias, and 1 out of 4 have a conservative one. That sounds about right to me.

Liberal media bias is *purposely* difficult to pin down, but certainly there are instances of tangible proof (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/paulgreenberg/2004/10/22/13424.html). That link leads to an article about an ABC memo from a top executive telling its newscasters that they have an ethical responsibility to focus on Kerry positively in the 2004 elections.

Here (http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=486) is a statistical analysis of the content of national news of the big 3 networks.

Re: the press's fascination with Clinton's sexcapades reflects the media's increasing love affair with the sensationalistic. However, many many editorials existed at the time decrying the fact that Clinton was even held accountable for lying under oath, citing his adultery and dishonesty as irrelevant.

Harry Browne makes a point that the media is possibly neither pro-liberal nor pro-conservative but instead just pro-big-government (http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne59.html) and almost always sides with the government. That's an interesting take too.

[Heather]

Did you know that that woman on the McLoughlin Group, the liberal who works for Newsweek (I cant remember her name atm), actually said that the job of the Supreme Court is to make laws?????

(Which, btw, is what liberal judges across the country are TRYING to do, never mind checks and balances. Who needs them, right?)

[Quinton]

I think the media are neither liberal nor conservative. They're only in it for themselves and will do and say anything to make a story no matter who it kills.

Princess Diana :'(

[Heather]

That was paparazzi, not the mainstream media. The two are vastly different.

[Quinton]

Last night I was reading this really interesting article (irony, go figure) on mainstream media and the lengths they go to for a story and the fact that they'd disregard someone's privacy just to sensationalize something they think the public really needs to know.

There are so many facts and events in my head that I really don't need in there. It's one of the reasons why I barely read the news anymore. Who and where Clinton decided to stick his thing into is one of those things I really didn't need to know. That along with anything to do with Michael Jackson. The list goes on and on.

Also one huge peeve with me. I really could care less what Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are doing.

[Heather]

Well, again...most of the reports about Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, Michael Jackson, etc...are reported in "tabloids" which are paparazzi publications.

You dont really find reports about them in papers like the NY Times, which is a mainstream publication, and what Andrea was referring to.

[Quinton]

And the fact that people actually buy those publications (*looks at own mother) only further serves to perpetuate the garbage that they write.

So yeah... anybody actually believe Katie Holmes is pregnant or that it really is Tom Cruise's offspring? (hehehe kidding)

[Faith]

Actually, mainstream newspapers have bias' here, but that's like, well known... like you buy one paper, then you know its conservative, you buy another, you know it leans towards labour...

[Andrea]

Faith, it's interesting you say that. I was just listening to NPR have a roundtable discussion about how "yellow" journalism was always the case, and that "objectivity" in journalism was a concept from the last 30 or 40 years. And that it's the case that people are largely reading what they already agree with, only now we have self-made reporters and editorializers in the form of the blogsphere.

[Ol'blueyes]

I think its disgusting how when you put on for example, "good morning america" and the top story is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise pregnant whereas other worldly issues are a thousand times more important.

[Faith]

Maybe a thousand times more important, but apparently, not a thousand times more desired by the breakfast eating masses :)

GMTV has it okay... the right mix of celebs and news :)

[Heather]

I think its disgusting how when you put on for example, "good morning america" and the top story is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise pregnant whereas other worldly issues are a thousand times more important.

Kinda like when CNN covered Jon Bon JOvi cutting his hair. Can you say "ridiculous"?!?!

[Quinton]

Jon Bon Jovi cutting his hair? Come on... But then again I guess with all the depression out there in the world maybe its nice to focus on non-depressing things even if they are pretty silly.

Anybody recall the "which Tellytubby is gay" nonsense? :lol:

[Faith]

aww gawd bless the media :lol:

Which was it, btw? Tinky Winky, right? :hehe:

[Quinton]

The one with the handbag. Can't remember what colour it was. Purple?

Speaking of children's entertainment... cute quote:
Character is taught at home, but not by a purple dinosaur or a big yellow bird.

[HappyHamster]

Purple with a triangle on his head, that's the one. I have the "Dance with the Teletubbies" video and I'm telling you he wants that tutu a bit too much for a straight Tubby! :lol:

[Faith]

The one with the handbag. Can't remember what colour it was. Purple?

Speaking of children's entertainment... cute quote:
Character is taught at home, but not by a purple dinosaur or a big yellow bird.

I'll have you know Big Bird helped me become the person I am today :verymad:

It was tinky winky :lol:

[Lorelai8Gilmore]

Noah, I think your post was still ignored...