John Kerry calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush

The Core RPGC Main Forum
1

Or some would have you believe. I guess this is just another case of don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

[quote=<A HREF=“http://countdown.msnbc.com/”>Keith Olbermann</A>]Last Wednesday, Senator John Kerry told the editorial board of the newspaper in New Bedford, Massachusetts, the “Standard-Times,” that he was amazed at the lack of American media coverage of the so-called “Downing Street Memo” — notes of a July, 2002 British cabinet meeting that suggested the U.S. was making all the evidence fit a pre-planned invasion of Iraq.

The words of the Democrats’ 2004 standard-bearer?: “When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue. I think (the memo) is a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth…”

Now, let’s play Blogosphere-Telephone with that statement.

By Saturday, those quotes, and the original New Bedford story, had been transmuted by a series of foreign and conservative websites into an article that included the line: “Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush’s impeachment to Congress, on Monday.”

Blogs and websites pulsated with the news: Kerry was going to call for the impeachment of President Bush! My inbox pulsated with the missives of angry conservatives (“you’re covering up Kerry’s traitorous comment”) and angry liberals (“corporate lapdog! Why didn’t you cover this? Do your job!”).

Once again, the first law of the Non-Mainstream Media was being ignored. Be suspicious of everything you read on the internet, not just those things with which you most agree, or about which you live in the greatest fear.

The Senator’s office told “Countdown” last night that he never said anything about impeachment and asked our reporter where he’d read that line. The answer was: the websites of NewsMax and Al-Jazeera.

The story originated — on Al-Jazeera.

The New Bedford newspaper story, exactly 746 words long, literally does not include the words impeach, or impeachment.

If this detail is still relevant in these super-heated political times, the story is not true. But at places as disparate as Al-Jazeera and NewsMax, they wanted it to be.
[/quote]

2

On a completely unrelated note to impeachment but was recent news involving Kerry and Bush, Kerry’s grades in Yale were pretty much comparable to Bush’s. :open_mouth:

And there’s no way Kerry could present a case for impeachment. Only the House impeaches, so a Representative would have to present it. Man. I wish all these angry bloggers knew their Constitution (OR EVEN FUCKING REMEMBERED 1998) better.

3

I’m absolutely sick of Al-Jazeera. All they seem to do these days is relay extremist propaganda and Bin Laden’s taped threats.

4

EDIT: Let me clarify. Are you “absolutely sick” of CNN and every other major news outlet in the US as well? Because, surprise, they also are nothing more than a dick-sucking service for the White House, who just relay extremist propaganda as well. They just do it for the other side.

Personally, if i am absolutely sick of anything, its the Western Media treating Al-Jeezera as some bastard child of theirs. They are nothing more than than a carbon-copy of all sensationalist news outlets around the globe, but because they have the GALL (!) to appeal to the ENEMY, they immediately get slammed into oblivion, and ridiculed.

Well, at least they have the GUTS to show the consequences of this war to their people, unlike the shit-tastic media we have here.

5

It’s not that the media over here doesn’t have the “guts” to show the consequences of war to people, it’s that they have the good taste not to. I’m not a fan of the war, but showing pictures of dying soldiers wouldn’t change anything. Anti-war people would just be more violently anti-war, pro-war people would be more violently pro-war, and moderate people would avoid the media even more than they already do just to avoid disturbing images.

6

Does this mean the Bush is going to turn into a Peach? Or is he saying he should stop being one?? :stuck_out_tongue:

Ninten:cool:

7

Whatever sells gets printed and, well, sells.

8

So? We showed images of Vietnamese children being killed by napalm attacks, scores of dead Americans, and suicides of protestors, all during the Vietnam war. We also showed live footage of people jumping to their deaths from the WTC, and people dying from Sarin gas during the Tokyo Subway bombing.

Shock images and journalism have gone hand in hand. But for whatever reason, we hear NOTHING about this war’s consequences. Maybe an occasional “oh yea, and there was a car bombing in mosul” at the end of a broadcast, but thats nothing.

I have a real problem with the media pretending like there is nothing else happening in the world aside from “LOL! WOMAN RUNS AWAY FROM MARRIAGE! AWWW, AND THEN BABY PUPPIES GET BORN! FOOTAGE AT 11!”

9

Remember Pearl Harbor?

10

I don’t know if maybe you don’t watch the news or something, but every day on NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams, the first order of business is the war in Iraq, and he mentions any deaths on either side, as well as anyone we’re looking for. If there’s any footage from Iraq, including that of car bombs, etc, he shows that too. Oh, and Brian Williams is a Republican. MSNBC (the cable branch of NBC News) reports on any deaths over in Iraq at least once an hour, and never as an afterthought, and even announces the names of dead soldiers, as soon as their families permit. CNN is pretty good about this, too, as are ABC News and CBS.

Most networks quickly changed the camera as soon as they saw someone jumping from the WTC, simply to show some taste. They certainly didn’t zoom in on the impact, or anything like that. No network has ever shown a suicide of a protestor from the Vietnam war, certainly not in their original news coverage of it. Graphic images of the Vietnam war didn’t start coming out until after the war ended.

One of the major reasons why the media doesn’t show ground footage of the war on the news every day is for national security. How is the government supposed to be able to carry out any plans without insurgents learning of them if the media is broadcasting the plan on cable every day? How can the pentagon and the White House inform parents of their childrens loss maturely if networks are already showing the soldier’s face and name? Those regulations are placed into effect for a reason, not to keep the American people out of the loop, but to keep whoever it is we’re fighting with out of the loop, and reporters don’t abide by them because they like the president, they abide by them because they are showing some level of respect for the soldiers in action.

With all the accusations of the “liberal media,” it’s amazing that whenever the media doesn’t agree with liberals, people accuse it of falling to some great governmental conspiracy. The fact of the matter is, a lot of the media is liberal, and they don’t agree with Bush’s policies or ideas. Thus, when they follow an order from the white house, that shows that it must be a good one.

(Unless it’s on Fox News, that doesn’t count. :P)

11

I’m going to seriously watch Fox News and analyze it, because everyone and their mother always seem to claim it’s so terrible. I watch it sometimes and it doesn’t seem to bad. Of course, that’s because it’s the Texas broadcast, eh, eh? Oh, right, Mr. Saturn is from Dallas. grumble

Everyday I hear about the bombings in Iraq and such, and they show videos of the things going on in there. They have a part of CBS News I think, every day where they have a piece about someone who dies in Iraq. So, yeah, I think we here about the war’s consequences, I just think the media realizes that it can’t focus on it all the time. Personally, I wouldn’t mind if they had someone dedicated to it all the time, because, as sad before, the Runaway Bride is NOT news I really care about.

Ironic, Montel is going over the same thing right now, interviewing that Thomas Hamill guy who was taken captive by insurgents. The only American who escaped captivity over there (he also had the same job as my Dad over there). That shows me how while the news doesn’t focus on it, it’s well aware that the citizens of America want to be informed about it.

Al-Jazeera gets bashed because some folks say that it displays not only propaganda, but terrorist propaganda. I realize that the American networks are not innocent, mayhap far from it. However, they don’t entice folks to start trouble. I don’t bash Al-Jazeera, personally, because I’ve never watched it, and developing opinions from other folks is not a very good way to do things.

If you ask me, one of the saddest things about our current media, is that at any moment, this interview with a man who’s been through so much in Iraq, could be interrupted by some major development dealing with Micheal Jackson. It shows just how screwed up our priorities are at times.

Off topic, but did ya’ll know that the folks that did that tape with Thomas Hamill wasn’t even Al-Jazeera? They said it was an Australian news network. The guy seemed kind of upset that they didn’t try to do anything for him, just let him get taken. I’m going to get this guys book when I get the chance.

12

Offical threat:
I made a bomb out of old underwear and computer parts that can blow up the whole world and I am going to use it!

Now someone take this and make money off of it please.

13

A lot of people are calling for the impeachment of Bush, but that doesn’t mean it’ll happen. >.>

14

There’s more to the “consequences of the war” than pictures of dying soldiers. During the war itself, the American media was predominantly “embedded” inside various military units, and its view of the world was confined to those circles; it reported on the equipment and explosions, interviewed the generals, discussed the military operations, made predictions on them, showed the advance of the invasion, and just about completely ignored the bodies left in its wake. General Tommy Franks even said, “We don’t do body counts.” Most of the information relayed by the media was coming from military and administration officials; to the extent that the human cost of the war was discussed at all, it was through the use of vile euphemisms like “collateral damage,” and through constant assurances of the great precision of the bombs.

In marked contrast, Arab media like Al-Jazeera was actually right there underneath the falling bombs, in the middle of Baghdad and other targeted areas, and was able to report first-hand on the aftermath, at great risk to its own staff. Arab audiences were thus shown the actual effects of the bombing, while American audiences were shown an explosion from a distance, followed by some official’s statement on the subject. The effect of this is that many Americans can still think of the war as of some kind of abstractly noble humanitarian cause, and don’t understand why the Arab world reacts in a hostile manner.

Why do you think it was so shocking when those Abu Ghraib photographs were published? It was because that was really the first occasion during this war in which the American public was able to widely see graphic evidence of extensive harm done to Iraqis by its own side. During the Vietnam War, the My Lai massacre also made a stir in the public debate; after My Lai, it was more difficult to present the war as pure and just. It was precisely that sort of “tasteless” evidence that suddenly drew attention to that premise, which is really the centrepiece of our foreign policy and of the future of our country.

The fact of the matter is, there are no major media outlets opposed to our neoconservative foreign policy of endless intervention, even among the supposed “liberals.” Prior to the war, the New York Times wrote: “If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no.” They didn’t express opposition to the invasion itself, but to its lack of “broad international support.” This is hardly a “liberal” position, unless one considers anything less than the furthest extreme of militarism to be “liberal.”

No, that shows that they can benefit from following it. Patriotism brings in good ratings, avoidance of unpleasant topics brings in more advertising money, and a good relationship with the White House results in greater “access.”

15

Well, that does raise a valid issue. After all, american public opinion has been largely misled every time such operations are carried out. The media is blatantly partial in this whole affair, and as a result, I think people aren’t getting the whole truth. And no, I don’t believe that the murder of journalists at the Al-Rashid hotel was an accident. Everything indicates that the US forces knew the journalists were there, and the lame excuses that were later presented don’t convince me either. The way I see it, there’s been an organized effort to grossly manipulate public opinion, not only through concealment of certain facts, but also through the intimidation of journalists. I see this as a serious violation of freedom of the press.

These manipulative actions have a series of consequences. First of all, many people aren’t aware of the true consequences of the war, including the death and devastation. If people saw what’s going on in there firsthand, then they might reconsider their support of the current policy. Secondly, by only showing the troop movements and the soldiers showing off, they mislead the public into thining that those soldiers are somehow invincible, and when some of them get killed, everyone freaks out. Finally, I just don’t think it’s right how the entire situation is being handled. The Abu Grahib scandal shows that this isn’t by any means a clean war, and what’s worse, that the US army is willing to step all over human rights and the Geneva Convention if it suits their interests. And don’t tell me that this was just the misdeeds of a few rogue soldiers, because I’m not buying that crap. I believe this to be an organized effort. Even before that, there were already rumors of what goes on in Guantanamo.

As for that remark about CNN and Al-Jazeera, I think they’re both acting wrongfuly. Each of them blatantly favors one of the sides, and when the media are biased, everything tends to be distorted. CNN’s crediblity has taken a considerable blow in my eyes. The way they and other media groups have been acting is simply outrageous, and not just concerning Afghanistan and Iraq. These days, everything is twisted, turned into a circus and milked for ratings until people can’t take it anymore. It was the same thing with 9/11. We all know it was a distaster, but after over a month getting bombarded with reports and pseudo-reports about it, I just wished they’d shut the fuck up, at least out of respect for the victims and their families. The media are absolutely shameless. I was also quite annoyed at their hype around Pope John Paul II’s death. They acted like damn vultures, and on top of that, people still had to put up with all the rumormongering. Some reports were presented as news even before being confirmed!

16

I’m just really happy that people have the intelligence to have this debate. To me, this is a sign that the media doesn’t have any kind of stranglehold on us.

Most people who still watch the evening news casts are older now, with the median age of that audience being over 55. That’s the main reason that networks try not to show anything too graphic or depressing. Cable news and the internet give us information about that if we choose to get it.

Mullenkamp: I personally don’t like Fox News (and, keep in mind, I refer to the Fox News Channel, not anyone’s local Fox affiliate’s news) because too many of their anchors have come out anti-Clinton or pro-Bush, and too many times have there been stories excitedly reported early in the Republicans favor, or stories incorrectly reported with a republican slant. CNN has been accused of being a Democrat-heavy network, and sometimes it is. MSNBC tries its best to be neutral during the day (obviously, no one can be neutral), and has two liberals (Chris Matthews and Dan Abrams), two conservatives (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough), and one person who at least makes it known before he announces his opinion in either direction. I tend to lean toward that network, because I see some people who agree with me, and some people who disagree with me. That’s what keeps a person thinking.

[edit]

Back to the original topic, I’m worried that this false story of Kerry’s supposed call for Bush’s impeachment might obscure the real story that the British have more or less proof that the US had determined to occupy Iraq before the war even started… -_-

17

Ah, so that’s why. I’ve watched the Fox News Channel…like, really rarely, so no wonder I didn’t know what everyone was talking about. I’d watch the local news and wonder what folks were talking about. I suppose I’m a little dense.

That’s not much of a surprise to me. I can’t remember very well, but wasn’t Bush saying that they’d oust Saddam Huissen and ensure a new government there beforehand? I don’t think I’m the only one who realized that nothing was going to come out of bombing them and leaving them alone afterwards. I kind of put two and two together.

18

THANK YOU!!! That about sums up my feelings on the news.

Up to the second to last sentence, I agree with your comments. I think that CNN and Fox News both try to start trouble with their respective biases and propaganda. I read the Rocky Mountain News/Denver Post, and it keeps me decently informed without too much bias. Though I am a Bush hating environmentalist, I wouldn’t lump myself into either of the major parties. I’m too far left to be considered either a Dem or a Republican. Plus my mom thinks I’m a socialist. I have watched Al-Jazeera, and they’re really no worse or more sensationalist than CNN or FNC.

Sat also brings up a good point. A lot of the media is liberal, which in my eyes goes to show that some of them are just as bad as neo-cons. I am glad that the Michael Jackson trial is over. Now tell us something we actually give a shit about,
you goddamned media whores. But of course, in another month, a different high profile celeb will become the focus of the American Media, rather than important issues like global warming, same-sex marriage, and the war. The media is nothing more than a business, as they seem to no longer care about the bigger picture and just want to exploit high profile celebs for money. I do realize that there are media outlets that do still give a shit about important issues, I just don’t consider CNN or FNC to be among them. The RMN/DP speaks to its local base about global warming, as it is a major problem here as far as natural structures such as icecaps are concerned, as well as the increased rainfall in a state like Colorado which is typically a dry state. I believe that the inceased rainfall here is a result of global warming melting away the icecaps, then they vaporize into the sky, causing rainfall.

Lastly, to the original topic, I want Bush out as much as the next guy. Bush’s political decisions and his line of business(oil) are major contributing factors to global warming and the destruction of what remains of our natural landscape. I have to drink bottled water because the oil rigs near my neighborhood pollute the ground water to the point where you would get sick from drinking it, unless you boil it first. But the reality is, that Bush will serve out his term because the Neo-Cons have a stronghold in the White House.

I imagine that I’m one of few people here who is concerned with global warming.

19

Better not fart, the methane produces greenhouses gasses that result in global warming.
revs up the motor on his 4x4 gas guzzling 76 chevy flatbed
Destruction of our enviroment is something humans do. We are our own natural enemy. Do you know how many chemicals were pumped into the atmosphere to create the plastic bottle and distill the water it contains ? What happens to that plastic bottle of water when you are finished drinking it ? just more trash getting compacted at the local garbage dump. How about the biproduct of the energy plant that you are getting the power to run your computer ? It’s just like those people who order a diet soda to go with their burger and fries from (insert fast food franchise here).

As for the result of this war. the consequences of this war have yet to be determined. You can see the death and destruction, but that’s apart of life. Destruction causes reconstruction. And that was hte purpose of Bush’s campeign, the destroy the iraqi government, and rebuild it to a more democratic standard. It certainly hasnt helped our oil companies aquire petrol, since i am paying about $2.50 a gallon for gas. Do you think this war in Iraq will end ? Once we build up a stronghold there, it’s a perfect launching pad into Iran.

Bush said, “I will bring democracy into the middle east”. The middle east is bigger than Iraq, mon ami.

If we had just bombed Iraq and left them alone afterwards, it would only make things worse. Instead of staying to setup and influence a new type of government, a democratic government, Saddam’s regime would only be replaced by another gang-run regime that would probably behave even more recklessly than hussein did.

In the end, it’s the problem of the world that is repeated time and time again in history. Leaders don’t ask “how is this best for the people?” instead they ask “how is this best for me ?” Hitler’s blitzkreig and holocaust wasn’t about germany, or the world at all, it was based on his own bitterness and self hatred. Bush isn’t doing anything Kerry wouldnt do.

Anyway’s, that’s just a few of my thoughts on the subject content of this thread. over an out.

20

As completely unbased this statement is, we’ll never find out, will we?