Yes.

No.

 

What does either answer have to do with anything?

 

Just wanted to verify that even though you are disappointed, you aren't dissappointed enough to want the Dems' choice in office. I don't agree with everything Bush has done or hasn't done either, but until I get a decent choice out of the Dems, I'm going to stick with what we've got. There have been mistakes (policy and military) in Iraq, but I think they can be fixed. And not by the Dems. It also irks me that the Dems have succeeded (with help from the liberal media of course) in making this election 99% about Iraq. They have no solutions or ideas of their own, their only tactic is to complain about one facet of what is going on in our country today.

What should jump out of the story is this: President Bush's most ardent supporters in going to war for the reasons stated have NOW said that they wish they had not pushed him/supported him because in their view (and the view of many on both sides), the administration screwed up. These folks believed in the idea 100% but now realize that President Bush and his team were not/are not equipped to handle the strategy. THAT is the story.

 

The story is SOME OF THEM. The author failed to give the other side of the story. Again, I AGREE that SOME of Bush's supporters are disappointed. WE ALREADY KNEW THIS. The author failed to even address the other side of the issue...

Stay with me on this - IN ALL HIS WORK HE NEVER RAN INTO ANYONE WITH A POSITIVE OPINION?

 

You're saying he interviewed people that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy, AND NO ONE WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THE FORMULATION OF POLICY HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION THAT WHAT HE CHOSE TO PRINT???

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

 

I guess that I'm not omniscient, even though you wish to endow me with that gift. I have no idea who all he interviewed for his article. Perhaps you have the complete list, and are simply holding back on us? No? Why not write the author a letter, asking him just that question. You could probably email him. Most articles that are posted on the web show the author's email address, for just such occassions.

 

Then again, I guess it would be easier to simply act as if this guy is just another pawn of the liberal media, set on destroying this country by interviewing people that have the temerity to disagree with some deeply held political dogma.

 

 

Frances

 

PS - let me know what the author says when he replies to your request for the list of people he interviewed.

I guess that I'm not omniscient, even though you wish to endow me with that gift. I have no idea who all he interviewed for his article. Perhaps you have the complete list, and are simply holding back on us? No? Why not write the author a letter, asking him just that question. You could probably email him. Most articles that are posted on the web show the author's email address, for just such occassions.

 

Then again, I guess it would be easier to simply act as if this guy is just another pawn of the liberal media, set on destroying this country by interviewing people that have the temerity to disagree with some deeply held political dogma.

 

 

Frances

 

PS - let me know what the author says when he replies to your request for the list of people he interviewed.

 

 

I'm trying to make this easy, but you just won't go for it.

Which is your position? Mine is he only gave one side of the story.

If you don't believe this (as you stated), you have to believe either: 1.) No one who, as you stated "that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy" had a different opinion that the people stated in his article, or 2.) there are people "that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy" who had a different opinion, but either weren't interviewed, or were interviewed, but their differing opinion was left out of the article.

 

Which is it?

I'm trying to make this easy, but you just won't go for it....

Strangely, the world just isn't as simplistic as some people wish it to be.

 

The reason I won't go for it is because I understand the process by which journalists decide on what issues to cover, how they conduct interviews, and how they often actually print what they find (as opposed to intentionally slanting 95% of the stories against the political party and President which you have chosen to act as an apologist for).

 

 

 

 

Frances

Strangely, the world just isn't as simplistic as some people wish it to be.

 

The reason I won't go for it is because I understand the process by which journalists decide on what issues to cover, how they conduct interviews, and how they often actually print what they find (as opposed to intentionally slanting 95% of the stories against the political party and President which you have chosen to act as an apologist for).

 

 

 

 

Frances

 

This one is easy, and predictably, you didn't answer my question. One more time:

 

I'm trying to make this easy, but you just won't go for it.

Which is your position? Mine is he only gave one side of the story.

If you don't believe this (as you stated), you have to believe either: 1.) No one who, as you stated "that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy" had a different opinion that the people stated in his article, or 2.) there are people "that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy" who had a different opinion, but either weren't interviewed, or were interviewed, but their differing opinion was left out of the article.

 

Which is it?

 

Please don't resond to this post unless you want to answer a VERY SIMPLE question.

I'm trying to make this easy, but you just won't go for it.

Which is your position? Mine is he only gave one side of the story.

If you don't believe this (as you stated), you have to believe either: 1.) No one who, as you stated "that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy" had a different opinion that the people stated in his article, or 2.) there are people "that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy" who had a different opinion, but either weren't interviewed, or were interviewed, but their differing opinion was left out of the article.

 

Which is it?

A common tactic used by journalists wanting to push a particular point of view is to call the object of their attack after business hours or on a weekend before reporting that "calls requesting a response were not immediately returned" or "attempts to contact so-and-so were unsuccessful." Also, journalists know that most large companies have strict policies regarding handling media inquiries. Reporters often call a person that they do not expect to provide a comment and then explain that the company "declined to comment" before running with the story that they have already decided to report.

 

When I was young and naive, I never gave much thought to such comments when I read them. I never suspected that journalists would intentionally write slanted stories and then insert a bogus excuse for not giving both sides of the story. Then it happened at a company for which I worked one Saturday morning. The phone rang and my boss answered it. On the other end of the line was an AP reporter asking for the company's response to a story involving ongoing litigation (in which we prevailed).

 

My boss should have referred the questions to our corporate spokesman, but instead he answered every question asked and offered to give the reporter our attorney's telephone number. The result was a long one-sided story on the following day that included a short paragraph of our company's "response" tacked on the end.

 

When I read the story, I immediately realized that the AP reporter did not expect nor did he want to get any kind of response from the company. That was the reason for calling on a Saturday morning, hours before his deadline.

 

Anybody who believes that journalists do not have agendas of their own and that their political biases do not seep into their reports is full of hogwash. It happens and it is sometimes intentional. Hopefully, this administration has learned its lesson and just gives the New York Times reporters a "no comment" when they call. They deserve much more, but their punishment will apparently come in the next life.

 

To be fair, Vanity Fair leans left but it also features some of the best written articles favoring the Iraq War that can be found anywhere. I don't always agree with Christopher Hitchens, but his defense of the Iraq War is generally better than those of the Bush administration itself. Hitchens is a throwback to the times when liberals supported the spread of democracy and human rights - using force when necessary.

The story is SOME OF THEM. The author failed to give the other side of the story. Again, I AGREE that SOME of Bush's supporters are disappointed. WE ALREADY KNEW THIS. The author failed to even address the other side of the issue...

 

Maybe, just maybe that's because the President's one-time supporters are deserting him in droves and there just aren't enought supporters remaining to form a basketball team?

 

One thing I find telling is that there are now literally dozens of books written by former insiders in the Bush White House that describe the dysfunctional, incompetent inner workings and the utter policy failures that have resulted, but there are comparatively few (none?) that relate an opposite impression.

 

Bush supporters, where are the books describing the visionary, honorable, decisive, heroic President that you all believe in and support? I would think if there was ANY truth to the notion that GWB is a great, strong President, there would be at least a few books that describe an insider's viewpoint of a great presidency.

 

Except there aren't...

This one is easy, and predictably, you didn't answer my question. One more time:

 

Please don't resond to this post unless you want to answer a VERY SIMPLE question.

 

Is it frustrating?

 

I wish I could answer your question, but the question itself misses the point of the article.

 

Perhaps if you could give me a question that addresses the gist of the article, we could have a meaningful conversation.

 

 

Frances

...Bush supporters, where are the books describing the visionary, honorable, decisive, heroic President that you all believe in and support? I would think if there was ANY truth to the notion that GWB is a great, strong President, there would be at least a few books that describe an insider's viewpoint of a great presidency.

 

Oh great. Now you've done it. Now I'll have to wait for the results of the poll search being conducted, while the faithful (dwindling though they are) try to find the books that describe how wonderful life is, working for W Almighty.

 

Besides - everyone knows that the authors of those couple hundred books are all leftist leaning commies, that want to destroy our country before we can win the war in Iraq and install a polished democracy in the Middle East.

 

 

Frances

Is it frustrating?

 

I wish I could answer your question, but the question itself misses the point of the article.

 

 

Frances

 

You've proved my point by not answering the simple question. I knew you wouldn't all along. :lol:

You've proved my point by not answering the simple question. I knew you wouldn't all along. :lol:

I think you meant "simplistic" - not "simple".

 

Let me know if you come up with a question that addresses the gist of the article.

 

 

Frances

I think you meant "simplistic" - not "simple".

 

Let me know if you come up with a question that addresses the gist of the article.

 

 

Frances

 

No, I meant simple.

 

12 results for: simple

 

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source

sim‧ple  /ˈsɪmpəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sim-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -pler, -plest, noun

–adjective

1. easy to understand, deal with, use, etc.: a simple matter; simple tools.

 

Now I see why you won't answer a simple question.:sssh:

I'm not sure why you guys are hung up on the author not having quotes from supporters. That would be easy and useless.

 

Its not like this guy is talking to registered Democrats who will predictably be against the President. Again, the story is that the President's BIGGEST SUPPORTERS OF HIS ACTIONS are not saying he blew it. THAT'S the story. There is no need for the other OBVIOUS side.

I'm not sure why you guys are hung up on the author not having quotes from supporters. That would be easy and useless.

 

Its not like this guy is talking to registered Democrats who will predictably be against the President. Again, the story is that the President's BIGGEST SUPPORTERS OF HIS ACTIONS are not saying he blew it. THAT'S the story. There is no need for the other OBVIOUS side.

 

No need to give both sides. Gotcha.:thumb: Then call it what it is: one-sided.

 

Edit: Want to take a stab at the simple (not simplistic) question I posed in post #19, that Frances refuses to answer?