Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/01/07 2:50 pm:
why not ask Al Gore ? (stunning revelation into the mind of the Democrats )


Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

He noted that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth unanimous report calling on world leaders to take action on global warming.

"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/01/07 2:52 pm:
I'm tempted to say unbelievable!, but it's all too believable. It has to be an alternate reality these people live in, the liberal media isn't liberal enough in their opinion, or tell a lie often enough ... or perhaps all three.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/01/07 2:59 pm:
Help me out here tom. That babbling by Swanson in the Coastal Post opened with, Here's why. Bush just connected Iraq to 9-11 again, and the media will not tell you it was a lie.

Did I miss where Bush connected Iraq with 9-11 recently?

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/01/07 3:21 pm:
not sure exactly what Swanson is refering to but it is a legit link to make . Bush sorta made it while justifying the surge . Frank Rich wrote in the NY Slimes last week:

In January's State of the Union address hawking the so-called surge, Mr. Bush did it again, warning that to leave Iraq "would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy."

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/01/07 3:38 pm:
Thanks tom. Sorta don't quite cut it for me. The implication has always been that Bush is blaming Iraq for 9-11, but making that connection based on that comment is like playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. The critics can eventually connect anything Bush says with a lie. I interpret his statement to mean we were struck by terrorists, there are terrorists in Iraq plying their trade, and if we leave those terrorists win and we've learned nothing.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/01/07 4:01 pm:
me neither but I think the President made a fundamental mistake backing away from the claim anyway. there is certainly enough evidence of an operational relationship between AQ and the Iraqi intel services to raise an eyebrow . Clearly the 1st WTC attack was linked to the cell of Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman ans was planned by Ramzi Yousef (a family member of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed mastermind of the 9-11 attack).Yousef is an "alleged" Iraqi Intelligence agent .(the first WTC bombing took place on the anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait). Laurie Mylroie made the case of the Iraqi connection to the 1st WTC bombing prior to 9-11 . Mylroie was a former aid the and advisor to Bill Clinton about Iraq. Here is more of her detailed research http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5451

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/01/07 5:18 pm:
You're right, he should not have backed away from that. But as I've said before it wouldn't matter, the critics are going to pound away no matter what he does ... it's pathological.