Be INFORMED

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

More Republicans Who Voted To Kill Our Troops

  Continued From Daily Kos

More local action on Republican troop killers

by Kagro X  Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:21:52 PM PDT

The drubbing continues from this morning...

Eye on Williamson
, on John Carter

[I]f supporting the troops means holding the President accountable and making sure our soldiers and Marines are well rested, well prepared, have healthcare, have body [armor], and armored Humvees then you can count out the Congressman whose district includes the largest Military Base in the United States of America. He’ll vote the party line instead.

Calitics, on John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis

But what else do they have in common, I mean, besides the fact that they are both corrupt? Well, they both voted to continue to send troops to Iraq before they're combat ready and fully equipped.... So, not only are they personally corrupt, they are morally bankrupt.  Good work, California GOP.

The MountainGoat Report, on Mike Simpson

Is party-line voting more important than military readiness?  Apparently so for Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson.... [T]he readiness standards aren't excessive, unreasonable or arbitrary — they are the standards set by the Department of Defense.  Then why, according to Red State Rebels, did every Republican on the Committee vote to scrap that language?  Maybe you should ask Mike Simpson.

Prairie State Blue, on Ray LaHood

Ray has gone and voted to send troops into the war without protective equipment. Well done Ray! That'll show the both our enemies and our own troops who does not support our military. And about those troops not complaining... Don't forget that you also have to talk to the families of those that don't come back.

Missouri Politics, on Jo Ann Emerson

Jo Ann Emerson and the Republican Party continue to talk about supporting the troops while voting to do the exact opposite.

Burnt Orange Report, on Kay Granger, John Carter and John Culberson

Why do Texas' Republican Congressmen continue to vote against our troops and for an unpopular war?

While it would seem, at the least, a bad political move and at its worst, a vote to put American men and women in harm's way, that is exactly what they are doing.

Raising Kaine, on Frank Wolf and Virgil Goode

Given that Virgil Goode is an ethically challenged, globally ridiculed xenophobe and that Frank Wolf got caught lying about his visit to Iraq, a vote against supporting our troops won't help them in 2008.

IdahoRocks, on Mike Simpson

Way to go Rep. Simpson....you who have never served in the military, you who say you support the troops but then want to send them into war without protection. Once again we have an elected official who does not represent the best interests of his communities, his state, and the troops he has sent to war. Shame on you.

We Have Failed Our Duty as Citizens..., on Mike Simpson

What kind of message do you think our soldiers receive when they are lacking appropriate armor, weapons, training, and medical care? What kind of message do they receive when their food is spoiled and their water is contaminated? What kind of message did we send them with the Walter Reed situation? What kind of message do they receive when they needed more troops and were denied over and over and over again...until this pitiful, too little, too late "surge"?

D-day, on Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle

Not only have both of these bloodsuckers drained the national treasury to give their defense contractor and lobbyist friends precious booty, they have talked about patriotism incessantly, yet committed the most unpatriotic act you can possibly commit, signing the death warrants of potentially thousands of Americans.

Democratic Grup, on Jim Walsh

Republicans like James Walsh voted to send our troops to war without proper body armor. Dan Maffei didn't seem to be the guy to take him last November, but in CNY has to do the right thing on behalf of our brave soldiers and send him packing in 2008.

Discourse.net, on Ander Crenshaw, Dave Weldon and C.W. "Bill" Young

There really is no ‘nice’ name for people from a country as rich as ours who send other people’s children, spouses, and parents into combat without basic necessities like body armor, armor for their vehicles, or the weapons they trained with.

Capitol Annex, on Granger, Culbersonand Carter

[T]he votes of Granger, Culberson, and Cater were to send ill-prepared, under-equipped soldiers into war with zero accountability provisions.

Rochester Returning, on Jim Walsh

Walsh voted against this — all the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee did. Shameful.

De Magno Opere, on Ralph Regula

What the hell?! You support sending troops unprepared and unequipped into battle Mr. Regula? Is that not what your vote says in clear and concise terms?

A Seattleite in Idaho, on Mike Simpson

I've been accused of not supporting the troops so many times, at least I didn't vote to send "unarmored, untrained, unrested (and even, Salon and the Hartford Courant tell us, wounded and mentally unstable) troops to Iraq.

 

Aiming At Fox News

  One more from Daily Kos on the Fox News crybabies who got a debate with the Democratic presidential contenders knocked out from under them.

 

Establishment players take aim at Fox News

by kos  Wed Mar 21, 2007

One of the narratives from the Fox News debate debacle was the notion that it was the "crazy, nazi, stalinist MoveOn and Daily Kos crowd" that was being mean to poor ol' Fox News. And journalists trotted out the Dan Gersteins of the Democratic Party to fuel that narrative. All "serious" Democrats understood the need to go on Fox to "reach out" to voters, yet they were being sabotaged by us crazies.

Yet we've found that in reality, there are plenty of Democrats -- even inside the beltway -- who are tired of the propaganda games Fox plays, even old foils like Paul Begala.

Looking forward, the victory in Nevada sends a powerful message to Fox: You’re not going to be able to use Democratic debates to whitewash your right-wing bias the way Exxon greenwashes its reputation by buying off academics and P.R. flacks.  

For Democrats, it sends an equally powerful message: Fight back. You can win. From its first days on the air, Fox News has smeared Bill and Hillary Clinton.  And when President Clinton finally called Fox on it, the effect was electric. Across America, progressives were galvanized into action.

For those who need reminding of Fox’s agenda – using their “fair and balanced” credibility to smear Democrats and help Republicans – here’s the bill of particulars:  

* Fox News’ founder and guiding genius, Roger Ailes, was the chief media strategist for President George H.W. Bush. When you have a Republican political consultant running a news network, don’t be surprised if that network becomes a propaganda tool for the Republican Party.

* After the 2006 elections, Fox Senior Vice President John Moody sent a memo to news staff instructing them: “Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress.”

* Robert Greenwald’s film Outfoxed exposed 33 similar memos from Moody before the 2004 elections. On Bush: “His political courage and tactical cunning are worth noting in our reporting through the day.” On Iraq: “Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there?”

* Fox’s Iraq coverage was so biased that a university study showed 80 percent of Fox viewers believed one of these three falsehoods: Saddam was behind 9/11; WMD’s were found in Iraq, or most of the world supported Mr. Bush’s Iraq war. Fox is entitled to its own opinions, but not its own facts.

Meanwhile, Dem pollster Mark Mellman also argues we should be marginalizing Fox's propaganda efforts.

A study by a University of Maryland center concluded, “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions” about Iraq. For example, in 2003, 67 percent of those who relied primarily on Fox wrongly believed the U.S. “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.” Only 40 percent of those who relied on print media harbored this illusion, debunked thoroughly by the 9/11 Commission.

Instead of providing “fair and balanced” reporting, Fox has created an audience ignorant of the facts, but fully supportive of management’s ideology.

An audience that decides for itself, based on “fair and balanced” coverage, ought not to reach monolithic conclusions. Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

None of this argues for a boycott of Fox. While harboring no illusions, Democrats should try to communicate on Fox and through every other channel. I appear as a guest and will continue to, in the unlikely event they invite me again. However, if Fox wants the legitimacy afforded by official sponsorship of Democratic debates, it needs to become a relatively objective news organization, not a dispenser of partisan cant.

Remember that statistic next time Fox apologists talk about all the independents and Democrats who supposedly watch Fox News:

Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

Democrats made the right choice in ditching the Fox News debate, and hopefully the CBC will make the same right choice.

 

Technorati tags: , , ,