Custom Search

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Media Lies Again....Anyone Surprised?

The New York Times and Wapo once again let their politics color their reporting.

The headline from the New York Times stating "G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy", makes me wonder if they watched the same thing on C-Span as I watched.

In the article, we find the truth of the matter, hidden in one paragraph:

The deadlock came after Democrats refused a proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, that would have cleared the way for a floor fight on the Warner resolution in return for votes on two competing Republican alternatives that were more supportive of the president.

The DEMOCRATS blocked further debate because they do not wish to have any other resolutions considered, other than that of John Warner/Carl Levin.... a quick note: Warner voted against debate on his own resolution because of the Democrats refusal to allow the others to be considered and debated.

Once again, the New York Times deliberately and dishonestly uses the headline to further their own agenda.

I will also point out something that struck me when listening to these politicians make their "speeches" before the vote.

Lieberman was great, made the case very clearly that any resolution must show our soldiers and General Petraeous full support and at the sametime make it clear to the Iraqi's that they are fully expected to meet certain benchmarks.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the independent who sided with Republicans in agreeing not to take up the resolution, called the proposal “a resolution of irresolution,” saying it criticized the president’s plan but did nothing concrete to stop it. He goaded colleagues who opposed the buildup to take more definitive action if that was their view. “Have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions,” he said.
Read Lieberman's full speech here.

Carl Levin who spoke next sounded like a thug in comparison to Joe Lieberman's well thought out speech.

Harry Reid actually started whining about it.... I have had a kid and I know whining when I hear it.

On the topic of whining, it IS ironic that the Democrats are whining about the very same issue, filibustering, that the Republicans spent years whining about when the Democrats used this tactic.... ever heard the expression, whats good for the goose is good for the gander?

This is politics.

If you do not watch these debates, you should. Watching the differences in these people and how they speak, the language, the body language, is very telling.

Now, Wapo's headline is more of the same as NYT with "GOP Stalls Debate On Troop Increase".

Once again, for any that did not watch, it was the Democrats that refused to allow votes on four different resolutions that brought about the vote that they could not overcome, because they did not have the 60 votes that would be required to simply bring the resolution they wanted to debate onto the floor without any of the others.

From the Wapo article:

At issue are four separate measures. The main resolution, worked out by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), would put the Senate on record as opposing the additional troop deployment while calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict. It would oppose a cutoff of funds for troops in the field of battle.

The Republican leadership's alternative, drafted by John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.

Two other versions appear at the heart of the impasse. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), would staunchly back the White House and the president's decision to boost troop strength in Iraq. It recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them -- before stating that "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds."

The other proposed resolution, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose Bush's plan and insist that all troops are properly protected with body armor and other material.

So, if the Democrats really wanted this debate on Iraq to come to the floor all they had to do was agree to discuss all four resolutions and they would be discussing it today, but they refused, therefore they could not receive the votes they needed.

I said from the start that their narrow majority in the senate would hurt them when the issue was Iraq because Lieberman, which gives the Democrats their 51 to 49 should he side with them, clearly sides with the Republicans on this issue.

I bet he is very happy right now with being an independent.

The NYT and Wapo has once again shown that they cannot report without their political agenda overriding their objectivity as the headlines show in these two articles.

The headline says one thing, but some weeding through the whole article can produce some relevant facts.

Special Reading on this:
The Politico with Demint, Captain's Quarters.

Others discussing this:
QandO, Gateway Pundit, Andrew Olmstead, PoliBlog, Hugh Hewitt.

Read all the discussion from both sides of the aisle here at memeorandum.