posted on August 17, 2005 10:22:47 AM
MSM Plead Statute of Limitations on Cindy's First Meeting With Bush
CRAWFORD, Texas --- Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier in Iraq, has been receiving fawning news coverage and support from Democrats since she began her protest in front of Bush's Crawford Ranch. While CNN, The New York Times and others have tripped over each other to cover this story, no one seems to be covering Cindy's comments from her initial meeting with President Bush in 2004 when she said "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
When confronted about the odd omission, the crack reporters in the mainstream media explained the situation. "Statute of limitations," said a reporter at the New York Times. "Cindy's positive comments about the President occurred over a year ago, so we're not required to mention them. There is no statute of limitations on negative comments about Bush, but we can exclude anything over one year old if it contradicts a negative statement about Bush or shows hypocrisy or makes a critic of Bush look like a jackass. All of this criticism of the media by conservatives is a crock. We're just following the rules."
About the Writer: Jeremy Robb is a San Francisco resident and satirist who notes that he is on a "one man's jihad against liberalism." He is the editor of the "Jerhad!com Newsletter" and his website is at http://www.jerhad.com. Jeremy receives e-mail at [email protected].
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 17, 2005 11:02:05 AM
Bear, are you trying to say that they should publish something that might make this woman seem a little ........unbalanced???
This thing seems to be dying its' own death. All that hype and they only attracted a couple hundred wackos. I noticed yesterday's paper had a 1 by 3 inch story on page 18. Even the reporters are getting bored to death.
posted on August 17, 2005 11:15:08 AMOrcinus answers that remark so well.
The song and dance continues: Michael Jackson. Scott and Laci Peterson. Robert Blake. Terri Schiavo. An endless circus of freak shows, bread and circus for the masses. Let's not be bothered by the inescapable reality that the United States invaded another nation under false pretenses, and almost certainly in violation of international law. Oh, and don't look over there at those photos from Abu Ghraib, either, or the reports out of Gitmo.
But then what happens? Someone comes along and reminds everyone that soldiers are dying daily in Iraq, and that this president still hasn't been called to account for misleading the nation into war, and in so doing, dishonoring the memories of those people who have died there. Someone tries to do what the media have failed to do: Hold this man to account.
And, well, the media poobahs huff and they puff. How dare she? Who does she think she is?
posted on August 17, 2005 11:23:54 AM
OH....THIS is my favorite part....
no one seems to be covering Cindy's comments from her initial meeting with President Bush in 2004 when she said "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
When confronted about the odd omission, the crack reporters in the mainstream media explained the situation. "Statute of limitations," said a reporter at the New York Times. "Cindy's positive comments about the President occurred over a year ago, so we're not required to mention them. There is no statute of limitations on negative comments about Bush, but we can exclude anything over one year old if it contradicts a negative statement about Bush or shows hypocrisy or makes a critic of Bush look like a jackass. All of this criticism of the media by conservatives is a crock. We're just following the rules."
NO......absolutely NO BIAS on their part in reporting her story. They aren't 'REQUIRED' to report the truth.
That's why the public is beginning to believe less and less their reports are true.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 17, 2005 11:33:32 AM
When confronted about the odd omission, the crack reporters in the mainstream media explained the situation. "Statute of limitations," said a reporter at the New York Times. "Cindy's positive comments about the President occurred over a year ago, so we're not required to mention them. There is no statute of limitations on negative comments about Bush, but we can exclude anything over one year old if it contradicts a negative statement about Bush or shows hypocrisy or makes a critic of Bush look like a jackass. All of this criticism of the media by conservatives is a crock. We're just following the rules."
They may also have noticed that her earlier meeting with Bush was in June, 2004. The Duelfer Report which made it clear that there were no WMD was released Sept. 2004. That point is significant since her complaint is that Bush misled the country into war with a false justification.
posted on August 17, 2005 02:22:45 PM Right on Helen!
Now youre calling Helen a consertative???
Hel-en we wouldn't have her.
You lefties are conviently forgetting the TWO UN resolutions against Sadaam & Iraq.
If ther were no WMD's, WHY didn't he obey the resolutions?
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 17, 2005 03:06:29 PM
That's just one on a very long list of questions they will NEVER answer. See...they put the blame on the US....NOT on saddam. Then they get upset when I say I see that as being pro-saddam and anti-American.
Some questions are just too difficult for the anti-war people to answer. Heaven forbid they should ever put the blame for war on saddam....even though he's the one that could have prevented this whole thing.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 17, 2005 03:08 PM ]
