Captain's Quarters -

Priceless !

I am pretty sure if this was an interview with Ahmadinejad, he would get a great, profound YES! It proofs yet again that most Liberals are bunch of naturally born traitors.

Amazing. Tell me again why our tax dollars support this scam?

Hopefully another light will go in in the brain of Juan Williams.

Juan Williams is not a friend of the White House ao I think this was a bureaucratic decision and was not about politics.

NPR more than likely wanted someone they figured might be able to trip up the President.

This doesn't have to do with bias. It has to do with NPR not acted as a PR machine for the White House.

The white house called and said they wanted to do an interview about race and we want Jaun Williams to conduct it.

Well, NPR said, we'd be happy to conduct that interview, but we'll decide who does the questioning.

The White House then said, no, only Williams. NPR passed.

It is kind of measuring contest, but I think it has less to do with bias than with Journalism integrity (go ahead, have some fun with that guys). The last thing journalism entity wants to be is a mouthpiece for an administration. Having the president call and say he wants to do an interview on a certain topic, conducted by a certain reporter comes a little too close to that. I think NPR maintaining control of who asks the questions is a reasonable stipulation that the White House did not a agree to.

It is hard to imagine the circumstances under which NPR could make itself more irrelevant than it already is. Their news coverage is disjointed, fragmented and massively interlaced with begging for funds and soft news, diaries and journals. For them to pass up an interview as unique as this one is unthinkable. They were handed a priceless gem and carelessly tossed it out to be picked up by a competitor.

NPR is publically funded, which means that can suck and survive. It doesn't mean, however, that they are required to suck.

At least with Fox the interview will be exposed to countless more people. That is good for GW as I think he came off well in it.

Excellent work, NPR. It's time to show President Failure that he can't pick and choose everything he wants.

Let him go to Faux and preach to the choir. Big deal. He maye raise his approval to a dizzying 37%, but NPR fans won't have to listen to his usual confused horseshit.

And right before Fall fundraising, too! Think I'll send in a little something extra this time. Good work, NPR!

On the topic of not wanting to be a mouthpiece (or be seen as a mouthpiece) for the administration...

Q Well, Mr. President, thank you for giving us this time.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.

Q I appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Good job.

Q Thank you, sir.

So both NPR and Tom Shipley think Juan Williams is going to get bamboozled by a president they think is an idiot?

From NPR's bio of Mr. Williams:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1930705

"Juan Williams, one of America's leading journalists, is a senior correspondent"

"He is also the author of the nonfiction bestseller Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965, the companion volume to the critically acclaimed television series. This Far by Faith: Stories from the African American Religious Experience appeared in February 2003."

"He has won an Emmy award for TV documentary writing and won widespread critical acclaim for a series of documentaries including "Politics - The New Black Power.""

Maybe this last part is why NPR didn't want him on the interview:
"Williams continues to be a contributing political analyst for the Fox News Channel and a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday."

Sacre' bleu! He actually also works for Fox.

Not surprising at all.
NPR is the pravda of the DNC. They do not publish any truth that does not meet their master's approval.
At least I will not feel guilty about declining to support NPR with private money on top of my forced tax dollar support when their latest begathon starts soon.

NPR = National Palestinian Radio

NPR = Nutroots Propaganda Regime

Juan Williams also works for Fox News, therefore he cannot be trusted to interview President Bush "correctly".

This is what bigotry looks like.

Tom Shipley,
Excellent example of journalistic integrity indeed! You know exactly what they would say before the fact! It is not like with the Ahmadinejad’s sermon at Columbia U, where he was able to surprise and dazzle us all the time, PR machine for himself and the mullahs, or not!

Any dupes whom would thank NPR's strictly amateur Daily Worker / Welfare Radio for depriving them of unfiltered information then promise to up their contributions as reward for the privilege reminds me of the adage about fools and money being soon parted.

Heh,

NPR: National Proletariat Radio.

I absolutely refuse to give any funds to any of the NPR beg-a-thons. My government already forces me to donate to them through taxes, which to my mind is like forcing me to make a political donation against my will.

Personally, I'd like to see it forced to compete with everyone else in the free market. Then it could join Air America on the curb with a sign and a tin can, out of work and irrelevant through their own devices.

respects,

Shipley; your brand of free speech apparently means free as long as it agrees with your perception of reality? Further, our society is based on the free and respectful exchange of ideas free of the vulgarities and swear words usually found in the vocabulary of an adolescent.

Fortunately, most Americans of various political persuasions find your, and NPR's, actions reprehensible. Keep it up!

So Tom Shipley by your last argument then Columbia U was a mouth piece for Ahmadinejad’s .

Excellent!

I love your lack of consistency :)

The cool thing about NPR is it tackles issues fully, and reports fairly and responsibly.

It also does NOT talk down to it's listeners or dumb things down like Faux does for it's 'viewers'.

Of course, Faux listeners are, on average, your undereducated nosepickers and mouthbreathers, more interested in bright shiney things and shitty 70's rock ballads than actual news, analysis and facts, so I can see why they have to dumb it down a couple notches.

I cannot believe the depth of the ignorance of the comments above.

If the President wants to talk business, he talks to a business reporter. If he wants to talk poltics, he talks to a politcal reporter. If he wants to talk race relations, he talks to a reporter who has written books on race relations.

Maybe he wanted to talk to the smartest person NPR had to offer on this subject and he believes that is Juan Williams.

Fortunately, most Americans of various political persuasions find your, and NPR's, actions reprehensible. Keep it up!

Can I see the polling numbers on that?

So Tom Shipley by your last argument then Columbia U was a mouth piece for Ahmadinejad’s.

No, because Columbia stipulated that half the time be spent on questions from the audience.

It also sharply challenged his beliefs and action. No, far from a mouthpiece actually.

And you didn't complete your thought, Ahmadinejad's what?

I can't believe the depths of 'goldwater's' ignorance.

This is America. I don't know what country you are posting from but here, in America, the President doesn't get to pick to whom he gives interviews. I don't know if your country has a constituition, but here in America, we tend to try to keep control of the press out of our politicians hands.

That NPR freeloaders consider it necessary to pipe in fake clinking of coffee cups and other obviously phony sound effects to accompany and elongate their tiresome morning programming is testament to their profound respect held for the [cough] deep imagination and intellect of their equally synthetic listeners.

Careful with that "tackles issues fully, and reports fairly and responsibly" dreck. I've heard that laughable jingle is already copyrighted by Dan Rather.

Tom Shipley:

Juan Williams has written in Washington Post for years. He makes no bones about his support for most of the Democratic Party's agenda and has been very critical of the Bush Adminstration's performance in Iraq.

It is amazing how you spin NPR's decision not to air the interview as standing up for journalistic integrity. It was nothing of the sort. Juan Williams is not a friend of the White House. He is just a good journalist. NPR's decision was based on Williams failure to go through proper NPR procedures.

Timpundit..

"Of course, Faux listeners are, on average, your undereducated nosepickers and mouthbreathers, more interested in bright shiney things and shitty 70's rock ballads than actual news, analysis and facts, so I can see why they have to dumb it down a couple notches."

Thanks... I often wondered what I am... maybe you can explain then why Fox News has higher ratings than the other 'news' shows?

It is intuitively obvious that you have trouble with reality, so maybe you should layoff the Kool Aid!

Being uneddikated, i dun writ dat reeeel slow so's u cud reed it

Funny how openly hypocritical the Left can be. They probably think of it as "intellectual flexibility", but their argument line is really quite close to that of Ahmadinejad's and intellectually quite bankrupt at that.

why are my tax dollars going to support npr? This is another arm of the democrat / socialist / anarchist propoganda machine. They absolutely refuse to employ any kind of balance in their reporting. You can count on them to tow the leftist line in all things. why are my tax dollars being spent in this way?

He makes no bones about his support for most of the Democratic Party's agenda

He is just a good journalist.

You obviously don't know what good journalism is. (not saying that J. Williams isn't a good journalist, I more question the first statement...)

NPR's decision was based on Williams failure to go through proper NPR procedures.

Well, maybe more the White House's failure to go through the proper channels as they contacted Williams directly, who then called NPR.

NPR has been trying to get a Bush interview for the past seven years with one of their news anchors. Williams has interviewed Bush before on NPR.

Really, I stand strongly by my initial statement. Bush wanted to talk about specific subject with a specific reporter. I think that comes too close to home for being a PR vessel rather than a news interview.

the White House says it has a good relationship with Williams. Often times when reporters start to have a "good relationship" with those they report on, a new organization will mix things.

That's why they wanted someone of their choosing to conduct the interview. Bush could have said yes to that. He didn't. So NPR declined.

Juan Williams really should play the race card on this obvious disenfranchisement then listen for the popping sounds as the bubble heads of Liberal phonies everywhere begin exploding.

NPR= Needless Political Rubbish

TomB,

How so?

Since you like to quip on small details – speech was the answer to what. I have often listened to Juan, and he is no supporter of Bush. Therefore, he is not a mouthpiece either, based on your previous answer. You stated simply that NPR would be a mouthpiece for the President and it choose not to be, same argument can me made about Columbia being a mouthpiece. Even more so since Ahmadinejad’s answers were never challenged! My point still made, I love your lack of consistency. I am not arguing for or against NPR’s or Columbia’s position, just your lack of evenness. At least have a framework of reason that stays unswerving. It does not help you in other debates. It makes you look small and petty just arguing against the President because you do not like him.

Waldo,

Ahmadinejad VIEWS were challanged... STRONGLY. He was asked tough questions about previous statements and actions. That's not acting as a mouthpiece in any way shape or form. It's nice that you're trying to portray me as small and petty, but you're just wrong on this.

Tom Shipley,

I think you didn't finish the sentence, so I can't really answer.

If the WH requesting Juan Williams conduct the interview was so terrible, why was Williams so upset and dismayed that NPR took a pass? I respect Williams for providing another point of view on Fox, though I disagree with him on almost every topic. He provides a good rational voice of dissent and NPR should be celebrating his access to a greater number of viewers, not "punishing" him by making their own asinine demands for access to the president. What a bunch of ninnies, they're probably all patting themselves on the back right now.

TomB:

It looks like the other Tom's definition of an unfriendly reporter is someone who moves in lockstep with the Daily Kos or moveon.org crowd.
He seems to think that just because Williams has good relations with the White House he must be a captive reporter. He has no concept of how someone can disagree with the President unless he spews vitriol. To the nutroots disagreement without hate is support.

It could also be argued that NPR hack administrators handle interviews not strictly adherent to DNC approval the same way their dear friend Ahmanutjob handles homosexuals. By process of elimination.

Daniel Schorr was originally slated to do the interview but he had a drooling attack of angry Liberal spittle complicated by reflux of Socialist bile. A Hillarycare quack couldn't be found in time to treat it so the White House suggested the milder (and sane) Juan Williams do the interview. Williams was too polite and sensible to meet NPR's rigid presstitute standards therefore the tape hit the editing room floor faster than exculpatory evidence does at Dateline or 60 minutes.

By the way, I frequently listen to NPR as a balance to Rush and Fox.... also because the AM radio in my VW is not very reliable. NPR comes through loud and clear always in upstate NY!

TomB,

How is the left being openly hypocritical and how is its reasoning close to Ahmadinejad's thinking?

Mr. Shipley:

My guess is that you think someone like Walter Duranty is great journalist.

timpundit: ... in America, the President doesn't get to pick to whom he gives interviews.

Reality check! Reporters can't force an interview out of anyone, that means that everyone gets to pick whether or not they give an interview at all, which gives some leverage on who they'll give an interview to. Reporters aren't interested in interviewing most people, but those they are interested in can indeed pick who interviews them.

He was not challenged, the question was asked he lied they moved on. So your premise is wrong that he was challenged it was a dance and a sham. The truth of Monday is out and it was a PR stunt plain and simple; try to give us one instance from Monday where his lie was challenged. Logically your argument would normally follow that either both episodes would be propaganda or both instances result in real dialogue. The reason why you are wrong is because you have not proved that he was challenged at Columbia, or President Bush was not challenged by Juan. You are still looking petty debating this issue the way you are. Only somebody who willfully suspends disbelief sees it differently. It is not going to change you or me so the debate is useless your reasoning is simple: everything in favor of Pres. Bush = bad, everything against Pres. Bush = good. You are dependable in that aspect, on all of your posts over the months.

It is better to read than post, so I will go back to my lurker status and read your arguments and walk away unmoved by them for they are based on hatred and not the desire to seek the truth. If you want to influence and win debates, seek truth not reflexive hatred. Apply consistent reason, beside the above approach, Pres Bush bad everything against him good because that is not the truth. There is good and bad about our Pres. and people in this forum who are concerned about truth have pointed them out.

Tom Shipley,
If somebody supports giving public voice to one person in the name of freedom of speech, and supports denying voice to somebody else to avoid being a "PR machine" it is almost a textbook hypocritical behavior. Go and check yourself a dictionary.

Waldo,

The act of asking the questions is challanging his views. The act of condeming is views and actions is challanging him. You may not think he was challanged enough, but his views about the Holocaust, Isreal, gays and human rights were challanged. You can't say they weren't.

How you can read this and say that he was not challanged is beyond me.

Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN ON SCHOLARS, JOURNALISTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES
Over the last two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Axima; and just two days ago Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a PhD in urban planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Teheran, under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country. Let me say this for the record, I call on the President today to ensure that Kian Tajbaksh will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Dr. Tajbaksh to join our faculty as a visiting professor in urban planning here at his Alma Mater, in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. And we hope he will be able to join us next semester.

The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today’s speaker to even appear on this campus.

But at least they are alive.

According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at least two children – further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.

There is more.

Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more open, democratic society in Iran. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.

These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called “soft revolution”. This has included jailing and forced retirements of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government “believes that the United States . . . is planning a Velvet Revolution” in Iran.

In this very room last year we learned something about Velvet Revolutions from Vaclav Havel. And we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening – President Michelle Bachelet Jeria of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.

We at this university have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values; and we won’t be shy in criticizing yours.

Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

And so I ask you:

Why have women, members of the Baha’i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?

Why in a letter last week to the Secretary General of the UN did Akbar Gangi, Iran’s leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world’s attention from the intolerable conditions your regime has created within Iran? In particular, the use of the Press Law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system.

Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked that you to speak here today. And while my colleague at the Law School Michael Dorf spoke to Radio Free Europe [sic, Voice of America] viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenets of freedom of speech in this country, I propose going further than that. Let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your university about free speech, with the same freedom we afford you today? Will you do that?

THE DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST
In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.

For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we’ve provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the “debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity’s capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue’s first line of defense.

Will you cease this outrage?

THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL
Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

FUNDING TERRORISM
According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent group as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the US with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria’s efforts to destabalize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.

My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?

PROXY WAR AGAINST U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ
In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

FINALLY, IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS

This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government’s refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics; and even Russia and China have shown concern.

Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreements that you have made with the UN nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation?

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

Tom according to your above statement Juan challenged Bush since he asked the Pres. questions, and in the past and present has made negative statements about the President and his policies. So, both cases are diaglogue and NPR would not have acted as a mouthpiece, and thus displayed reflexive attitude toward the President, would you agree?

You still didn't post any excerpts where his lies were challenged at Colubmia. Making a statement of fact is not a challenge. Most reasonable people knows Monday was a kabuki dance.

. …NPR is it tackles issues fully……Of course, Faux listeners are, on average, your undereducated nosepickers and mouthbreathers….…

I listen to neither NPR nor Fox, so in a sense I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I will instead address the tone of the above words. I voted for McGovern and Carter, and once was an avid NPR listener. I stopped listening to NPR years ago after getting tired of the sneering undertone of its commentaries. Remember the old bumper sticker: “VOTE REPUBLICAN. IT’S BETTER THAN THINKING.” That is NPR in a nutshell.

As a child I had a JFK poster on my bedroom door. Had the Democratic Party not strayed from the policies of HST or JFK I would have remained a Democrat Those of us who left the Democratic Party in the last 30 years did so after due reflection. We are not as stupid and uneducated as you believe.

It is also ironic that NPR turns down having a black journalist interview the President. It appears that diversity does not trump ideology and control. On the other hand, if the President turned down an interview by a black journalist, NPR would be one of the first to denounce such RACISM.

Well, Waldo,

The specific questions they asked were a challange to his policies and views.

They could have asked him what his favorite soup was, but they chose to challange him with questions on stance on Israel, terrorism, the Holocaust, etc...

He was challanged. And I haven't read Williams interview with Bush, but I standby what I said, the president asking to speak with a specific reporter on a specific topic comes too close to becoming just a vessell for the president as opposed to a news interview. that's why they wanted to choose who interviewed him.

The president wanted to talk to Juan Williams about race relations. NPR wanted an interview with Bush. Bush didn't want an interview NPR. NPR didn't want to serve as a vessell for Bush's talk with Williams. So they agreed to part ways on this.

LarryD,

Thank you for saying the one thing I think is most important here. If you are a person of status, most of the time, you do indeed pick who interviews you. There is no obligation to give anyone an interview and ground rules are often established beforehand - in some cases I've read about, going so far as to limit all questions to a single topic. This is just the way it works. If, as a media outlet, you want the interview badly enough, you make some concessions. Apparently, for whatever reason, NPR did not want this interview that badly.

Tom, your assumption is one I do not accept because as you have admitted you did not read the interview. Therefore, to assume that somebody who has been an antagonist to the Pres. would simply roll over is unbelievable. Maybe Pres. asked for him because he was the most knowledgeable on the subject at NPR? You must prove that assumption.

I also do not accept the argument that asking questions, and it does not matter the subject, constitutes a challenge. An answer must be followed up when it is a lie or you disagree; if you let such a statement stand unchallenged, the exchange becomes uncritical. This tactic of asking questions without follow up has often been a propaganda mechanism. It is establishing talking points using a question format.

What you and I are engaged in is a critical debate, and a healthy one, what was on display at Columbia U, was not a critical forum but PR stunt.

I also do not accept the argument that asking questions, and it does not matter the subject, constitutes a challenge.

A question can be a challenge, most certainly. They were in the case of the Columbia students and faculty.

Do you not think this is a challenge?

THE DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST
In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.

For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we’ve provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the “debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity’s capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue’s first line of defense.

Will you cease this outrage?

Really, this is not a challenge???

And it's kind of amusing to read this:

your assumption is one I do not accept because as you have admitted you did not read the interview.

Do you not understand that the content of the Williams interview is beside the point when discussing why NPR chose to turn down Bush's request when he refused to be interviewed by anyone beside Williams.

Even though I disagree with him often, Williams is very fair in his approach to issues. Seems likely that that is what NPR wanted to avoid.

Whatever Bush's other failings, he is a master at giving his opponents enough rope. He didn't turn down NPR. He asked NPR. He asked for a respected black journalist whose work is frequently on the issue of the proposed interview.
NPR wanted to use somebody else, who by definition wouldn't have been as good as Williams. Not being as informed as Williams means the interview would have been lame, unless the purpose were to be NPR-like hostile to the pres and try, as one commenter said, to trip him up on something.

NPR lost that one, which would never have flown, anyway, Bush looks as if he's been rebuked once again trying to be reasonable, and NPR looks like jerks.

Great return for a little investment.

Now, the other possibility is that the interview with Williams, had it come off, would have shown, despite the interviewer's required challenging, Bush doing okay on race relations.

Bush wins and NPR loses.

Or, Bush wins and NPR loses.

Man's a genius.

XM rocks...it liberates...it is available all across the country...no politics (unless you put it on one of News networks)...you pay a set rate and no annoying letters...lots of geezer music in addition to the rockers...does create some tensions between the generations but they can bring their own players it's your car!

The Captain is dead wrong on this one. As the comments from the left-wingers here demonstrate, the Left will spin this as a puff piece demanded by the President and broadcast by "Faux" News. They will applaud NPR for being smart and honest and not falling for the President's attempt to trick them into broadcasting his puff piece. In the minds of left-wingers, NPR didn't lose and Fox didn't win. We can only hope that there are moderates and independents who see beneath the left-wing spin.

No offense Tom and I'm not trying to pick a fight, but the example posted was not a question. It was a speech. A's response was not posted, but I assume it was banal and empty of any useful substance. You can't ask 75-part questions and expect to get a good reply. At best, the person will pick the easiest question to dodge and dodge it.

I think that A did exactly that from what I remember from the transcript, if he bothered to address the question at all.

I imagine that those saying it is wrong for President Bush to pick his interviewer also take issue with Hillary calling all 5 networks offering to be on all of their Sunday programs on the same Sunday...this is unprecedented but she had a message she wanted to get out. Do you not believe that she also put limitations on what could be asked of her?...silly boyz!

Well, technically it was a question. And there were many other more specific questions in his intro. And yes, even Bollinger admits that he did not expect his questions to be answered. But do you not admit that Bollinger challanged A's views?

And later, he did receive questions again about his views on the Holocaust, etc... that he did have an opportunity to answer. He dodged them, to no surprise. Seems people would have liked more direct follow-up questions, but do you really think he would have answered any differently? The questions did challange him, his views and his actions.

Bottom line, to say Ahmadinejad's beliefs and actions were not challanged is ignoring what happened at Columbia on Monday.

Tom,

If that constitutes a challenge then you should also consider such questions by Juan back in January 29, 2007 interview on NPR a challenge. Example from that interview

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, now, one of the concerns might be that you have – the gunmen were trying to assassinate clerics and pilgrims – Shia pilgrims. So I'm wondering if that's an indication of a civil war – a term that, you know, you've been reluctant to use.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think it's an indication that there are murderers who will kill innocent people to stop the advance of a form of government that is the opposite of what they believe. You know, we can debate terms, but what can't be debated is the fact that Iraq is violent, and the violence is caused by Sunni Arabs like al-Qaida, who have made it clear that they want to create chaos and drive the United States out so they can have safe haven, and then they could launch attacks against America. No question the attack on the Golden Mosque of Samarra, which is a Shia holy site, caused Shia extremists to retaliate.

Now, there is some criminality going on, Juan, when there is no push-back in society; criminals are able to – you know, to have their way, and now the question is whether or not it's worth it in our interest – whether it's in the interests of the United States to help the Iraqi government do what's necessary to deal with these extremists. And I've obviously made the decision, I think it is.

I fully understand it's going to be up to the Iraqis to solve their problems. I was hoping to be in a different position. In other words, I had hoped I'd be able to interview with you and say, well, you know, we're not needed as much anymore, but I fully recognize that unless the violence in Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, the sectarian violence and the criminality is dealt with, then the political reconciliation necessary to unite the country isn't going to happen. And so I made a tough decision, and that is to reinforce our troops there and put a new commander there in the hopes of breaking the sectarian violence – or helping the Iraqis break it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, you've got a vote tomorrow in the Senate to consider a resolution opposing the troop buildup. Vice President Cheney said last week that vote would validate the insurgents' strategy. And so, do you agree?

Juan has a history of asking the President antagonist questions, therefore why would this interview be different and would only result in propaganda

I am just saying you must be consistent either each event was propaganda or dialogue, so which one where they? Please answer yes or no. Let us break this down

Your criteria for a critical forum was
1. A person must be asked a germane question, of why, for what reason, etc.
2. The individual must answer the question, either truthfully or not.

Columbia will be a, and the President b

1. Each venue had a person asking similar questions
2. Each venue had the respondent answer the questions

Thus a=b

so either:

a was dialogue, b must then be dialogue
OR
b was propaganda, a must then be propaganda

The protests about NPR and Williams being spun are funny... They are also very hypocritical... The GQ tale of spiking the Josh Green story to "get" Bill Clinton on their cover says it all... The Clintons didn't invent controlling the media. He took it to a new level and now she is showing that if elected it will be non-stop fluffy pieces by selected reporters... Will these same protestors be spewing forth the same type protests-? Not Very Likely.... You sure did get the Loonie-Birds out with this one...

The real question we should be asking is "Can We Trust Any News Media?" If it's negative, are they biased or is it true-? If it's positive, is it biased or is it true-? If they are all saying the same thing, is it biased or is it true?

The lack of competition in Establishment Media breeds a lot of hand holding as they all cover the same tales... Maybe that explains the declining numbers of viewers, subscribers and advertising dollars... Most business people would shift gears and respond to the market... Sailing on and on and on is the way to oblivion

First off Waldo,

I never said that Williams have never challenged the president. I'm glad you found that example, but it's not a key point of my argument...

Which is, Bush asked for a specific reporter to inverview him on a specific topic. NPR has been after him to give an interview to one of its hosts (of which Williams is not one) for years. NPR said, we'd love to interview you, but we want one of our hosts to do it. Bush said no. So NPR said, OK, no interview.

Allowing the president to pick the topic and interviewer is bordering on a puff piece. NPR wants a legitimate news interview. It seems they agreed on the topic, but NPR wanted to choose who interviewed him (which is reasonable considering it is their news organization. They are responsible for assigning their reporters, not the president). They couldn't agree, so the NPR interview didn't happen.

On the subject of whether NPR is a tool of the Liberal Left, and whether or not they are losing public support:

My husband and I supported NPR for years, until they began the sharp leftward turn in their views and reporting. I decided about two years ago that I might not be able to do anything about my tax dollars going to them, but I sure as hell didn't have to send them anything additional, so I said no to the next solicitation phone call, and explained why. The woman caller hung up on me after a really nasty "FINE!" I smiled..... I imagine, judging from her repsonse, that she had heard this before.

The only possible explanation for refusing Juan Williams as the interviewer is that NPR didn't want an interview. They wanted a hit piece.

Were they either both propoganda or dialogue?

Therefore, a critical forum consists of a third part, how it was organized. Thus you are saying that a does not equal b because of organization.

Now it has moved on from content of the dialogue to include how it was arranged and organized. I disagree a puff piece is based on the information contained in the dialogue, not on how it was organized. So you say a > b because of organization and arrangements. I could then say a was propaganda because a received a benefit in the release of one of its individuals from Iranian prison.

The only possible explanation for refusing Juan Williams as the interviewer is that NPR didn't want an interview. They wanted a hit piece.

Really, that's the only possible explanation? I think I've laid out a very possible explanation in my other posts.

There are two basic lines of arguments supporting the NPR executive decision to refuse Bush an on-air interview with Juan Williams.

1. As a matter of principle, presidents and other major public figures should not be able to choose who interviews them.

2. Extrapolating rational implications from V.P. Weiss's stated reasons, Juan Williams was inadequate for the task. The recommended comments in Kurtz's WaPo piece and blogs at the Daily Kos show that Juan Williams is known to be a partisan conservative hack, not an objective reporter.

As to claim 1.

If this is a principle and policy at NPR we should expect it to be consistently applied. We will expect the evidence to show that Presidents Clinton and Carter, Speakers Pelosi and Hastert, ML Reid, etc. have been and are similarly denied. In that case there is no bias.

But does this policy fulfill this public institutions obligations to the public interest?

I for one think this is a petty and egotistical rationale which flies in the face of the CPB goal (http://tinyurl.com/2jc3ec): “programming that creates better informed citizens on the national and local level in an objective and balanced manner.” An interview with the president of the USA is vitally important to an informed citizenry, no matter what his/her views are. Public institutions (those taking public money for serving the public interest) ought not insert their own judgment regarding whether their platform is being unfairly used by the peoples' representative -- the duly elected President of the USA -- in order to communicate his message to the people of the USA. A purely private institution may not be similarly obligated however.

This claim is suspect and arguably fails in light of NPR's obligation to the public interest.

As to 2:

If VP Weiss does indeed intend to suggest the rationale expressed by so many on the left, then one must ask why NPR -- which insists that all of its staff maintain the highest level of objectivity in reporting -- has not taken disciplinary action against this partisan conservative reporter.

Conclusion.

CPB has oversight in these matters and it ought to investigate the situation fully and provide a public answer to the questions that have been raised.

Does NPR have a name-the-interviewer policy with presidents and other high profile public figures?

Does this policy violate or enhance the public interest goal of informing the public?

Else if this is not a policy is the decision subject to partnership?

Do executives at NPR view that Juan Williams is conducting non-objective partisan reporting?

Yes? Then does an objective inquiry find this to be so? If yes, then why did the executives not take disciplinary action? If no, then are the executives influenced by partisanship and what shall be done to rectify that?

No? Then what possible public interest is served by this arbitrary decision to control the interviewer that outweighs the public interest in informing the public of the US Presidents views and policy?

It would indeed be a sad day if it is found that CPB oversight is required to correct news room egoism. Nevertheless CPB oversight and investigation is precisely what is required by this event.

Darn it I forgot HTML tags I typed the actual character instead of < > tags. Therefore > was suppose to be < >.

We will expect the evidence to show that Presidents Clinton and Carter, Speakers Pelosi and Hastert, ML Reid, etc. have been and are similarly denied

Well, the article states that Hillary Clinton asked for a certain reporter and was denied.

"Really, that's the only possible explanation? I think I've laid out a very possible explanation in my other posts."

I have read your explanation, and I disagree. Juan Williams is an excellent reporter who has never, at least that I've heard, been particularly sympathetic to the White House or George Bush. He is also extremely well qualified to be the interviewer in a piece on race relations, since he has lived the subject and written two books about it. I've been listening to him since he was on Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street Week, and although I don't often agree with his views, I respect him as an accomplished professional.

As I said, I see NPR's refusal in the light of not being able to frame the inteview to suit their own agenda, which is decidedly anti-George W. Bush.

Tom Shipley says

This doesn't have to do with bias. It has to do with NPR not acted (sic) as a PR machine for the White House.

Translation: NPR was right to give the interview a pass because the White House asked for the NPR heaviweight on race relations.

Tom Shipley also says, sarcastically

Q Well, Mr. President, thank you for giving us this time.

Translation: An interviewer should always be discourteous to the interviewee, to show their independence.

Tom Shipley continues:

You obviously don't know what good journalism is. (not saying that J. Williams isn't a good journalist, I more question the first statement...)

Translation: J. Williams also works for Fox. no self-respecting liberal would ever allow that Fox practices journalism.

My views, of course, differ. The interview covered the White House staffing profile, the Jena Six, the White House response to Hurricane Katrina, immigration reform, Bush's absence from the 50th anniversary celebration of Brown v. Board of Education. He asked some tough questions that black voters certainly have on their minds right now, which is the essence of journalistic inquiry.

Now, Mr. Shipley goes on to show what he considers real journalism -- the questions asked of Ahmadinejad. Lessee:

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

The above question lets the interviewee completely off of the hook with regard to answering the real question hidden therein but left unstated -- whether Ahmadinejad intendeds to destroy Israel or to aid in its destruction. He can truthfully answer "no" because his target is not Columbia University, the us of the last sentence.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

The answer to this one is an easy deflection, based on the left's own posts here: General Peter Pace has previously said that he has no knowledge of official Iranian government involvement in this affair. Therefore there is none.

Of course, Ahmadinejad was disingenuous. Either because of language issues or his lack of intelligence, he failed to see the holes in the questions the interviewer asked.

Then the interviewer does what Shipley thinks every good interview should do -- he insults the interviewee.

My point: Unlike Tom Shipley, I'd rather have a polite interviewer asking tough questions than an impolite interviewer asking soft questions.

If Bush had asked to be interviewed by one of their leftist anchors, Stevie or 'lissa, they would have acquiesced in a heartbeat.

Oy. 73 "comments" up, when I just came by.

But I figured Viking01 would come by and say stuff I love to read. While being pithy.

Wasn't disappointed!

4 GEMS.

And, exhibiting the "insider knowledge" that comes having worked those fields.

And, double-oy. I can remember back when Daniel Shorr was considered "journalistic material."

By the way, when bubbles pop? Didn't seem to make a sound at TNR, when Elspeth Reeves got fired. I wonder, though, how that went? Did "Elle" suspect a thing when she was called up by personnel?

You don't think Franklin Foer did it, direct, do ya?

JR,

I'm sure whoever NPR would have chosen for the interview would have been polite. Call them what you will, but they don't have a reputation for being rude.

And...

Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

I think it's clear as day the reference is to the U.S.

And those questions you cited are NOT soft questions. they are rather pointed and direct.

Then the interviewer does what Shipley thinks every good interview should do

Do yourself a favor and don't put words in other people's mouths or thoughts in their heads.

I was a longtime NPR listener, but lost interest when their "news organization" got corrupted by the BBC back in the early 1990s.

Tom Shipley says:

"Allowing the president to pick the topic and interviewer is bordering on a puff piece."

Gee, Hillary has been doing that since she started running. And will do it in spades if she's elected.

How come she's afraid to go on O'Reilly's show? Jean-Claude Kerry has been on Bill's show several times, and even Mikey Moore went on with him.

She's obviously afraid of being asked REAL questions...

I'll second Tom on NPR's etiquette. The one time they invited me on ATC, they were very polite and accommodating.

Well Tom Shipley, you are getting pounded a bit here but I am still interested in your thoughts.

Yes the article says Hillary was not allowed to be interviewed by the health care reporter. She apparently wanted an interview that concentrated on her presidential campaign's newly announced health-care plan. Do you believe that NPR wants to deny her a platform for talking about that? Do you believe they should, simply because that is what she wants to talk about? Does it turn out they did? If she had walked away from the interview would you have congratulated NPR on principle. After all, she is conducting a partisan political campaign here.

Of course President Bush is not even conducting a campaign appearance. He wanted to talk to the nation about race relations on a day significant in the history of race relations. So are we to celebrate that NPR denied the nation a platform for his message? Perhaps NPR's and your judgment is that he should be talking about something else because after all, there are much more important issues facing the nation than that. Or else perhaps you think they thought that someone on the staff other than Mr. Williams was better qualified for that subject. Or else it just purely a matter of principle and so NPR will always demand an interviewer and a subject other than who or what a president or other US policy figure requests.

I submit that such a principle is purely one of "oppositional defiance." It leads to a course of action based purely on what is contrary to the opposed subject's desires. It is does not serve the valid public interest of informing.

If NPR has a non-petty, non-self-interested reason for refusing the president this interview, I have not yet heard it.

I guess Williams isn't liberal enough to bash, errr, I mean, interview Bush.

Or, more likely from a liberal perspective, Williams doesn't hold the plantation line and therefore is not black enough.

With 5 or 7 networks (I lost count, sorry), a million cable stations, a quadrillion radio stations and a google internet blogs, what exactly are we funding PBS and NPR for? That was one of my disappointments with Reagan, he didn't try to pull the plug on these superflous entities.

NPR didnt realize it(cuz smart liberal is getting to be more of an oxymoron every day, emphasis on the moron) but they showed their lack of necessity by ditching Mr Williams' interview. A private company picked it up instead, one that didnt waste my money.

Tom I believe your argument fails because of a logical fallacy. The fallacy of Circumstatial Ad Hominem. Example: Article was a puff because the interviewee asked for a certain interviewer. That does not establish the content of the article, which is in question, only that a certain reporter was requested.

That's another argument you can make. That it's for the public good that NPR allow the president to speak through it.

Hearing what the president has to say is certainly in the public's interest. But, Bush can decide to hold a press conference or speak from the oval office any time he likes.

NPR has a responsibility to serve as a check on the government. It's important for them to be able to assign who they want to interview public figures. If they let Hillary or the president dictate only certain reporters can talk to them, it sets a precedent that impedes their ability conduct the interviews they want to conduct.

Yes, I would have backed NPR's decision if Hillary walked away from the interview. It may seem petty to some, but I think it's important that NPR stay in control of who does their reporting.

Sorry, meant to quote John E in my last response. My last post was in response to his post.

And Waldo,

I said having the president choosing the topic and who interviews him borders on being a puff piece.

But you're right, the content of an interview is what makes it a puff piece, not who conducts it. But the circumstances of who asks and what topics are discussed can contribute to the content.

I should have said that is gives the appearance for or sets the table for a "puff piece." It very well could not have turned out to be one. But NPR should keep control of who does it's reporting on any assignment.

btw, did you read the interview yet?

Tom Sipley,
Why do you keep to call the President "the president" (but Waldo is still Waldo)?
Or would you rather prefer to be called tom sipley?
Just curiosity.

Captain,

Since you've got your measuring stick out; I'll comment that better than the interview getting to FOX. It got here. And, it's generating the most comments.

The Internet has a wonderful way of adding magnitude.

It's kind'a sad, though, that you can now see NPR's "dedicated audience," ... the ones who actually tune it in ... are no more than a sophisticated version of Koz followers.

Nah. I'm not surprised to find that in a democracy you can account for an entire spectrum fitting under the Bell Curve.

What's been lost to NPR, and PBS, however, has been the mainstream audience.

You've got the site meter. You know the difference.

Because "president" is a title, not a proper name. It's proper to lower-case "president" when it doesn't appear in front of his name.

And no, I have not read the interview.

Lots of ignorance in the comments.

Ignorance #1: "The President doesn't get to pick who interviews him."

Um, actually, he does - he's not constitutionally obliged to sit for any interview, so he has a say re: who conducts it.

If you want to see how this works, insist that Hillary! has to sit & be interviewed by Ann Coulter.

Ignorance #2: "Juan Williams' connection to FoxNews invalidates the interview."

Ummm .... okay. I'll let you children take that up with Juan directly - - it's too silly to waste any more time on here.

The lone bright spot of all this is the reminder that your BDS is still raging ...

Tom.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.

I agree that it is a common expectation that the press is a check on our politicians. But through its financial association with CPB NPR has uniquely obligated itself to this objective and balanced dissemination information in the public interest. Are you among the company of critics who believe this goal is unrealistic? I suppose I should assume that by your previous answer and so the legal premise upon which federal funding is distributed to NPR is called into question.

If I set aside this issue of obligation to the public interest -- which is hard to do because it is an existential one for NPR -- then I can more easily entertain the unfettered preeminence you give to the principle of maintaining control over interviewer and subject. (I can join you in respecting that as a weighted factor in executive decisions regardless).

The question of "What is responsible control?" does still present itself. If the subject wants interviewer X for subject x must we therefore insist on interviewer Y and subject y? Surely not. We maintain control simply by executing our independent judgment. If we approve of subject x and interviewer X, then we can grant that from a position of control.

Therefore in application of our principle of control, the substance of the particular case is entirely relevant. Here we have the President of the US wanting to talk about race relations on the anniversary of an important day in race relations with one of our experts in race relations. To refuse this we must have a very particular and weighty beef with this wherein it is forcing us to do something we believe ought not be done. Otherwise if we support this subject and this interviewer on this subject we shall be happy to grant it with no sense of infringement on our exercise of control. So the substance of our decision process is important even in view of the principle.

So, even if I agree fully with your principle, the balanced and objective substance is missing but is necessary for justification.

Now we can't read the minds of these decision makers at NPR. Only an objective investigation into the process can reveal what is going on. I think it is warranted. Do you? Or do you dispute my analysis?

Tom Shipley:

You said: "...But NPR should keep control of who does it's reporting on any assignment..."

I am glad you have almost stumbled onto he the crux of the matter if only by accident.

This is all about NPR process and not content. They wanted the White House to come begging then for an interview and they didn't. Now if this were from Bill or Hillary then there would never have been a problem.

Your BDS has driven you to make a molehill into a mountain.

No, I don't think an investigation is warranted. As has been noted, they did the same thing to Clinton when she asked for a specific reporter. I don't know if they have an official policy of refusing requests for certain interviewers, but they do seem to be consistent in doing so.

I think NPR is beholden to the government only in that it should act as an independent news organization that provides good and objective news reporting and analysis. And I think they do that, and I don't think this incident breaks from that.

As to your other analysis, to the best of my understanding, you're saying you agree with me that NPR should be able to choose who reports on what. But in this case, Williams is obviously the right guy for the job, so the fact that they wouldn't meet Bush's request is disingenuous.

I can see where you're coming from on that, but they say they want one of their hosts to interview Bush, so...

As I said before, it may seem extreme or petty, but I think they are standing by their policy, and not doing this because of politics. Obviously, as you noted, we don't know what went on inside their heads, so people can surely disagree with me on that.

Now if this were from Bill or Hillary then there would never have been a problem.

You sure about that, Jerry?

When Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign last week offered an interview to NPR's health reporter, Weiss said, the network obtained permission to have it done instead by "All Things Considered" host Melissa Block.

Tom Shipley

You can't spell "challenged" so you are likely 20 or 30 something and certainly not retired. You've been posting here today periodically from 7:27 am until 1:29 pm.

Your 7:27 am post suggests you have inside knowledge. I have a few questions for you.

1. Is Tom Shipley your real name?
2. Are you being paid to post here?
3. Who pays you?
4. Where else do you post and what name do you use?
5. How's Hillary?

Terry,

If "inside knowledge" comes from reading the article Ed posted, then yes, I have inside knowledge.

This is the only political site I post at. I do post at others, always under my name, Tom Shipley.

Nobody pays me to post on this site (or any site). I am in no way affiliated with any politician or political party other than being a registered Democrat.

And I'm leaning toward Obama.

Tom...

In a prior post you noted that Hillary Clinton is not a parallel case because she did not walk away. Whether they would have let her walk away or not is an unanswered question so we don't have evidence of through-going principled consistency. To be sure, we need a case where they made President Bill Clinton take a hike.

Who could possibly dispute what you personally want from NPR. I shall not. The issue I raise is the statutory framework upon which NPR receives federal funding. I suppose that is a predicate for any demand for investigation. Rather than talk past each other, I'll let that drop.

Perhaps I can be more clear. I do generally grant your principle of control as one factor, not an absolutely preeminent one. But for the sake of discussion I granted it completely to show that the substance of the decision process is nevertheless relevant.

To a thinking person "because they say so" is not a final answer to questions regarding the justification of this decision. One would at least like to be able to project a reasonable rationale. For example: it is not right to give the POTUS a platform for discussing race relations. Mr. Williams in inadequate to the task. Many on the left have at least made such claims about Mr. Williams as their strong rationale. It remains to be seen whether VP Weiss will repudiate that or leave Mr. Williams hanging out to dry. Perhaps her non-action will allow us to infer that this is her rationale after all.

Instead of resorting to "because they say so" you might try challenging me to be a glass half full Tom. Assert that we should charitably look for a reasonable explanation. Honestly, the most charitable explanation I can come up with is the petty one: the management did it in order to prop up the morale of the senior egos in the news room. But this is only charitable compared to less favorable scenarios. The idea that NPR needs to turn interviews into pissing contests to show who is boss is even less charitable in that it makes them puerile.

How about answering this question: who at NPR would have been more qualified to conduct the interview? If NPR has a show host that has written more than two best-selling books on race relations and a biography of a civil-rights pioneer like Thurgood Marshall, then I'd say NPR had a point.

However, they don't. Juan Williams was the man with the best qualifications and the most credibility on this topic. Weiss' decision had nothing to do with NPR's independence or journalistic integrity.

Thank you for answering my questions, Tom.

Leaning Democrat is bad enough but why would a bright young man like you support someone who is clearly incompetent on foreign policy?

And you are no doubt young, as is clear from your unfamiliarity with the rules regarding proper names and lack of attention to detail, to wit:

This is the only political site I post at. I do post at others, always under my name, Tom Shipley

The presidency is not simply "a title" it is an office, a sworn duty, a position of command, the chairman of the executive branch of government. The central voice of the Constitutional republic. When that office speaks and activist media seek to interpret the 1st Amendment by inverse fashion to suppress it they have become propagandists not reporters.

Some respected the office of President appropriately with Ed Murrow and Lowell Thomas among them. Today many activist media calling themselves journalists disrespect the office of President when it suits their agenda with Clinton suck ups like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Katie Couric merely parroting the party line. Perhaps they disrespect office of the presidency so because Clinton taught them how he did.

NPR suffers from political inbreeding hastened by having their bills paid whether or not the product is junk. Like British royalty they've had most of the sense bred out of them by generations of inbreeding caused by only associating and hiring those who share their narrow Socialist views. As with masterpiece art the best way to destroy it is to fund it. If the checks keep clearing regardless of quality there remains no incentive for quality. Except perhaps shame yet to support the Clintoons that hindrance will have already been long ago discarded.

There's a different angle on what NPR has done. It isn't so much that they wanted a hit piece on the president. It is that their mindset won't allow them to permit the Public to hear something which isn't.

Goebbels and Riefenstahl quickly learned a central tenet to propaganda effectiveness. That guidepost is that it is imperative in propaganda to not only present their heroes as saints and their opponents as villains but to eliminate any and all portrayals of their opponents as anything BUT villains whenever and wherever possible.

To summarize, NPR management has become the Soviet noise signal jamming Radio Free Europe while the freedom of the Internet has made a quick detour around that impediment. Juan Williams probably now knows and understands first hand what the SwiftBoat veterans encountered from an activist Liberal press. Perhaps he will shake off the Liberal chains by which NPR has attempted to shackle him. It's his choice whether or not to remain NPR's jilted token or to finally seek his freedom outside the PBS / NPR activist welfare media plantation.

The question cuts to the quick Cap'n. The clear indisputable answer is that nobody is better than Juan Williams, as you pointed at in your original post.

VP Weiss has put NPR in a vice, I mean a vise.

Viking01; I agree with your latest post. (And, it's true, I came here looking for your words.)

But just as hitler died knowing he lost; and the propaganda "artists" of germany had their thunder stolen from them by Baghdad Bob. Exactly what does propaganda bring?

For instance, lots of parents learn the hard way, that if they tell kids NOT to do something; invariably what they don't want to see happening; happens. Does.

NPR has a very limited audience.

I'm sure, among "intellectuals," (those with jobs not flipping hamburgers), they'll listen to the tripe, produced. But it's nowhere near the glory days.

And, this stuff actually feeds the Internet. FREE FUEL! We pick it up and people get to see what they would otherwise be missing; if they have zero interest in NPR.

During WW2, europeans buried short-wave radios; just so they could, when the coast was clear, tune in for real news. Which got shared only in secret. No one could afford to be caught with a short-wave radio, though. That would get a person killed in front of a firing squad. It made people very careful. It didn't stop them from searching the airwaves.

It's even easier, today.

Now, in another example: I'm not sure Walter Lipmann was the "father" of TNR; but I read, recently, that he was. So even on the left there are people who are spinning in their graves.

And, from wholesale to retail (which is a good way to judge profits and losses); just getting a check from NPR, for shoddy work ... brings you to realize the unions already tried this trick. Destroyed themselves. But not the Japanese car market. Or "right to work" states; which had more sunshine than Detroit.

Sincewe don't live in Eutopia; eventually losing customers has bad consequences. It really does!

Terry,

I am correct on the "president" issue. President is not capitialized on it's own. If I recall correctly, it was originally done as a measure of modesty, one way to show that president is not King, but a man of the people, representing the people.

Look here, Fox News even does it. See the 3rd paragraph from the bottom:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298129,00.html

And yes, I should have said "This is the only political site I post on. I post on other, non-political Web site, always under my name, Tom Shipley."

And yes, I do not give the details a lot of time when I post on here. Usually just write and post, so you'll see a lot of typos, misspellings, etc... in them.

And I'm 32, since you you're wondering.

Actually, I may have been mixing my presidential history.

The salutation "Mr. President" was adopted by Washington as a sign of modesty.

But, in terms of style, it is proper to lower case "president" when it does not precede his name. King is also lower cased on its own.

as is clear from your unfamiliarity with the rules regarding proper names

Terry, how exactly is this clear?

viking01 says:

"NPR suffers from political inbreeding hastened by having their bills paid whether or not the product is junk. Like British royalty they've had most of the sense bred out of them by generations of inbreeding caused by only associating and hiring those who share their narrow Socialist views."

Exactly right, and the prime example is Ms. Weiss. She's been at NPR for a quarter of a century. And surprise-she and her husband were regulars at Clinton State Dinners at the White House.

Tom

When you use a noun to refer to a particular person you are using a proper noun and this requires a capital.

There's no point in referring to what some news organization does. Grammar hasn't been taught correctly since way back in the days I was a liberal.

Tom,
so then you must really be outraged that nearly all the democratic candidates refuse to appear on FOX news or even appear on the debates that fox news puts out. After all, since CNN, MSBC,PBS,NPR lean left of center we can be sure that they will only write puff peaces, whereas FOX since it has a conservative bent and would not act as a laptop the democrats would be the only ones asking the tough questions. Correct?

So those dems are a truly cowardly lot, eh?

Terry,

That's news to me. I can't speak to what the rules of grammar were when you were taught, but today titles are not capitalized unless they precede a name or you are addressing the person (hello, Mr. President).:

Rule 3 Capitalize a person's title when it precedes the name. Do not capitalize when the title is acting as a description following the name.
Examples Chairperson Petrov
Ms. Petrov, the chairperson of the company, will address us at noon.

_____________________

Rule 5 Capitalize the titles of high-ranking government officials when used with or before their names. Do not capitalize the civil title if it is used instead of the name.
Examples The president will address Congress.
All senators are expected to attend.
The governors and lieutenant governors called for a special task force.
Governor Fortinbrass, Lieutenant Governor Poppins, Attorney General Dalloway, and Senators James and Twain will attend.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp

Tom,

The book English Composition and Grammar Benchmark Edition, by John E. Warriner, states on page 630

Capitalize a title used alone or following a person’s name only if it refers to a high government official or someone else to whom you want to show special respect.

The book was one of the finest English texts books produced.

People reading your posts feel you are not showing the office proper respect.

Tom,

I am only 5 years older than you and I was taught in high school, college, and graduate school to captalize a title of a high ranking official.

At moveon.org, PBS and NPR board meetings is it proper protocol to address Hillary as "Comrade Clinton" or "Fellow Bolshevik"?

Waldo,

People on here think a lot of things about me that aren't true. I can't do anything about that.

Tom,
Tom,
so then you must really be outraged that nearly all the democratic candidates refuse to appear on FOX news or even appear on the debates that fox news puts out. After all, since CNN, MSBC,PBS,NPR lean left of center we can be sure that they will only write puff peaces, whereas FOX since it has a conservative bent and would not act as lapdogs to the democrats,and would be the only ones asking the tough questions. Correct?

So those dems are a truly cowardly lot, eh? At least Bush asked someone, Williams who if you watch fox is the guy they always bring in as the counterpoint to the say Fred Barnes, and who usually making the argument counter to the administration.

(sorry, resubmitted because of truly glaring typos. That's what happens when you're doing two things at once)

jr565 -
NPR does not have to follow every whim of the White House. I'm impressed that they passed up on a sure surge in listeners because of their ethics. It impresses me profoundly. For people to argue that the white house should be allowed to tell NPR that only a certain person can interview him, well it's a bit ridiculous. You guys try to come up with all sorts of reasons why the the white house would only let Williams interview Bush (e.g. because Williams has written 2 books et al...), but the fact remains that the white house shouldn't be DICTATING to any news organization who does the interview.

Since it seems hard for some on the right to think straight these past 6 years, let me make it easy for you. What if Bill Clinton, while President, declined any interview with Fox news at all, except for Colmes, who got to interview him twice? Wouldn't you be pretty pissed if Fox wanted Hume to do the interview? Wouldn't that strike you as ethically challenged?

Now, personally, I wouldn't grant any interviews to Fox. They have blatantly shown their bias and push it into living rooms around the country without a shade embarrassment when they say 'Fair and Balanced'. You guys will try to say every other news network is liberal (which is quite the feat), but if your honest, none of them even come close to being as blatant as Fox. Not to mention, as the studies have shown, Fox seems to make its viewers the least informed of any "news" organization. So it wouldn't do much good anyway.

Saying that all democrat candidates refuse to appear on Fox news, though, is false. From the top of my head, I remember seeing Biden, Bill Clinton, Kucinich,

But why would someone want to appear on FOx when even Roger Ailes compares Obama to Osama? (his joke: And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?')

I can't even imagine people at NBC, ABC, or CBS ever speaking consistently of how much they loathe a certain party. They will, at times, discuss what's wrong with this or that, but you will never find a Neil Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hume or Hannity. The only ones that compare are actually conservatives like Glenn Beck on CNN or Bennett on NBC now (used to be on CNN).

Terry/whereswaldo -- Are you actually railing on someone for grammatical errors on a blog? really? Everyone messes grammar up and doesn't really care as long as the idea gets through. For you to rail on it is a bit immature.

Although, I admit I have wanted to on many occasions... But then i look back thRouGh my p0sts and find alot

crap - i had a great run on sentence and misspellings and all sorts of fun things in the post above... but i guess the alligator mouth button doesn't work out so well with this blog's software, and I had inserted one after "alot" to show that it was an error too and yeah this is a run on too and yeah ok whatever... boo...

Oh, I forgot a few more topics Bush was required to address in my list above. His choice of appointments to the Supremes, Obama vs. Clinton, scrutiny of black achievers.

And, Tom Shipley, I didn't put words into your mouth -- I merely translated into unclesmrgol-talk the words you did utter.

If you don't like my translations, you might try uttering sensible thoughts.

Tell me again: why do I have to pay taxes to support this station - or public television, for that matter? Don't we all have Internet and cable?

If NPR ever requests an interview with the President, he should tell them to go to Helen Waite. (You get my punch line!)

CK wrote:
But why would someone want to appear on FOx when even Roger Ailes compares Obama to Osama? (his joke: And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?')
You don't get the joke do you. Its a joke about Bush not about Obama. See Obama sounds like Osama. Osama is a terrorist, Obama is a senator. So when Bush says why can't we catch this guy, referring to Obama, he is mistaking the name of the two thinking he's referring to Osama and not Obama.
Sorry I have to explain jokes to you, but if that's why dems dont' want to appear on fox, maybe they shouldn't show anyway, as the discourse, apparently, might be beyond their intelligence.
I can't even imagine people at NBC, ABC, or CBS ever speaking consistently of how much they loathe a certain party. They will, at times, discuss what's wrong with this or that, but you will never find a Neil Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hume or Hannity. The only ones that compare are actually conservatives like Glenn Beck on CNN or Bennett on NBC now (used to be on CNN). Are youkidding me? You're lumping in Neil Cavuto and Brit Hume as some extremsits? Do you actually watch these shows? Brit Hume is a phenomenal anchor, and Cavuto is for all intents and purposes a seemingly genuinely nice guy.And Hannity, has as a counterpoint Colmes, mr. milquetoast himself.
And have you ever watched Jack Cafferty, Lou Dobbs or maybe er mr demagogue himself keith Olbermann. You can seriously with a straight face compare a Brit HUme to a Keith Olberamann? please.

Now, personally, I wouldn't grant any interviews to Fox. They have blatantly shown their bias and push it into living rooms around the country without a shade embarrassment when they say 'Fair and Balanced'. Blatantly shown their bias? as opposed to the Times leaking secrets, calling afgahnistan a quagmire the very first day, giving adds to move on.org for discounts, or cnn cherry coating Iraqs truth so as to stay in the country? Bias? 90% of the media in general vote democrat? please. but according to Tom, the flaw is that Bush chose a newscaster who was deferential to him as opposed to one who was antagonistic. Of course, wouldn't it stand to reason then according to that logic that if a liberal leaning new organization asks questions of a democrat that they will be deferential and not at all probing. That they'd be puff peaces as opposed to hard hitting journalism?

What if Bill Clinton, while President, declined any interview with Fox news at all, except for Colmes, who got to interview him twice? Wouldn't you be pretty pissed if Fox wanted Hume to do the interview? Wouldn't that strike you as ethically challenged?
Funny I remember when clinton blew a gasket when a fox reporter asked him what to him was a tough question and went off on a tirade. I guess he was expecting a puff piece. But how is Clinton asking for COlmes comparable to Bush asking for Juan WIlliams. Do you ever watch Juan Williams on Fox? He is ALWAYS the guy who is the liberal voice in the roundtable who is nearly always speaking the liberal position counter to the administrations. Whearas, Colmes is a liberal and so is Clinton. Juan Williams is not exactly a friend of the administration. He's not quite as belligerent as a Keith Olbermann (or I would say hes more professional and less of a demagogue than Olbermann) but he's not a friend of Bush. So youru comparison isnt apt. How about if Hillary gets interviewed, like she was recently, by GEORGE STEPHANAPOLOUS?!? See any conflict of interest there?

jr - l0l
you don't have to explain it to me... But maybe you need to understand that everytime Fox equates Obama with Osama, it gets into people's psyches and it ends up being detrimental to Obama's campaign... They know this... Why do you think they played the false madrassa story so much?

I watch Fox news almost everyday - regrettably - And yes, Cavuto and Hume are horribly biased.
Cafferty rails on both parties, but since Republicans have the white house, yes he does rail on republicans more at this time. But he isn't one sided, and he doesn't get nearly as much air time.

Lou Dobbs is on a personal vendetta against all things immigration. He's hardly a liberal talking head.

Keith Olbermann is comparable to O'reilly -- the only real difference is Olbermann puts some thought into what he says. But I never mentioned MSNBC did I?

90 percent of the media do not vote democratic. Please show me that study. And you might want to re-read the study I know you will post, because that one did not poll the whole media... It polled a few people in media, including sports, and trivial jobs that have no influence on the actual story... And it was NOT a reflection of media in general. And if the Ny Times really is leaking classified secrets and are treasonous, don't you think they would have been shut down by now? The fact is they aren't. They are legal, and for the most part the information they provide is in the interest of the public at large - maybe not republicans, but the public at large. I know you will debate that, and I will debate back, so let's drop this point.

Juan Williams is Fox's answer to put on a soft left leaning commentator to give the illusion of balance. Apparently you wouldn't recognize real journalism if it bit you in the ass. Real journalism asks questions that you wouldn't want to ask. Real journalism is not a mouthpiece for our government, it's the check to our government getting away with whatever they want. Real journalism would have let us all know that the lead up to the iraq war was total BS.

Juan Williams is Fox's answer to put on a soft left leaning commentator to give the illusion of balance. Apparently you wouldn't recognize real journalism if it bit you in the ass. Real journalism asks questions that you wouldn't want to ask. Real journalism is not a mouthpiece for our government, it's the check to our government getting away with whatever they want. Real journalism would have let us all know that the lead up to the iraq war was total BS.
So where was the real journalism when CNN was whitewashing Iraq so as to maintain access. And where was the real journalism holidng Clinton accountable for saying exactl the same lies that Bush supposedly said 4 years later, when he sanctioned Iraq, bombed Iraq, contained Iraq, and wagged the dog with his vice president Al Gore and signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, which was signed into law with the help of nearly every democrat in congress- and what was the rationale again? Oh yeah, there needs to be a regime change in iraq because of sadaams terror ties, not to mention the desire to move Iraq to democracy. Sounds so familiar almost like dejavu. Yet where was that great journalism you're suggesting? where were those great questions when the UN sanctioned Iraq 16 times?
I notice that no media was qouting out of context NIE reports when containment caused Osama to wage jihad against the west (thus increasing terrorism).
Lets go back shall we Ck? The lead up to war was bullshit according to you. But what led up to the leadup to the war, but the previous administration and their dealings with Iraq. Were they all liars too CK? Was iraqi liberation act all based on lies, was containment all based on lies? was the no fly zones and the UN sanctions all based on lies. Because that's on the UN and the Clintons. Where did the truth end and the lies begin for you, 2001?

Uncle,

You put words in my mouth.

Juan Williams is a mouthpiece for the White House ...

Juan Williams is a soft-left leaning liberal ...

Whatever.

This type of rhetoric demonstrates, again,the lengths that some will go to be against because it involves the White House, Bush, making a request.

Those being apologetic for NPR really have no argument and it shows!

Dale/TexasDude - The argument for NPR is simple. They are allowed to choose who they have interview who. The white house does not run the press. If Bush wants to give an interview to NPR, then NPR should be allowed to choose the interviewer. - Simple

Jr - You act as if you got me on some great point or something... You want to hear what I think about CNN? Not much... I think they get suckered into spouting off the White House's lines far too often. Yes, I didn't like Clinton's bombing campaign of Iraq. Yes, I didn't like CNN's coverage of it. There's one major difference between CNN and Fox though. Fox PROMOTES the war and the white house talking points; CNN repeats it, but also has a couple good people in the field (Michael Ware I think?) that actually talk through the BS.

You don't have to convince me that CNN isn't so hot. And I'm well aware of my distaste for the bombing campaign in the 90's. Although there is also a big difference in Clinton's campaign and Bush's. The weapons inspectors were getting restricted access by Saddam in the 90s, and they stated they couldn't do their job:
"Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for its prohibited weapons programs," the report said. -- Butler UNSCOM

This time around, the inspectors were asking for more time, and had not found anything very bad at that point. It's true Saddam was not being very forthright, but they claimed they didn't need him to be in order to do their job. They simply wanted more time before Bush ordered the attack. They didn't get it. We never found the stockpiles we claimed were there. And now Iraq is in a bit of chaos. And Fox promoted it the whole way!

So, CK, i'd like to know from you were Clinton and the UN lying about Iraq back in the 90's. Because a lot of stuff happened in the 1990's. Containment (which Osama used as justification for his attacks on the US including 9/11). If they were lying then it's disingenous to say containment worked or was working, because it was containment based on a lie,and Iraqis suffered because of it (remember all the Iraqi children dying from the sanctions). If Clinton and co. lied then the UN and Clinton signed off on a genocide (well, the actual number of deaths were similarly exaggerated by the various groups for political purposes, but certainly many did die - and since your side keeps spouting off all the figures about how a million iraqis died in this war, I'll similarly cite the figure that 1 million iraqi babies died becuse of sanctions alone.So then compound that with Oil for Food, which did not in fact enrich the Iraqis but did enrich the Sadaam regime, and was perhaps the largest scandal in UN's history.
Every time your types bring up the whole no blood for oil canard, I have to point, out that there was alraedy a mechanism in place for cheap oil, and that was to simply buy it from Sadaam like the Chinese and French and Russians were doing (undercutting the containment regime in the process). If anyone was using Iraq for oil it was the UN, which apparently had no problem containing Iraq and enriching Sadaam to get themselves cheap oil. Since while Sadaam was in power he continued filling his rape rooms and mass graves, and considering the resources from Oil for Food were not going to Iraqi people but to their leaders, then the oil for food deaths and the deaths of Iraqis under sadaam are on the heads of the UN and Clinton.
Now it turns out that according to you, clinton and the UN were lying the whole time. You do realize the implications then of course? One, Clinton wagged the dog by bombing iraq to get the countries attention off of monica. Two he and his partners in the UN not only contained an innocent country causing the death of countless iraqis, but further compounded their evil by then imposing an oil for food program apparently to benefit themselves and not Iraqis.
This is the obvious implications of Bush being a liar. Because in 1998 Clinton signed Iraqi liberation act calling for regime change (because Iraq was a threat, had WMD's wasn't reforming was a terrorist state etc etc)and called for assisting with democracy after the regime was removed. Then because of further lack of cooperation by Iraq clinton bombed Iraq. Then all the inspectors left the country and didn't return for 4 years until the eve of war, when they had to be brought in by amassing troops in the ME in ships that bordered Iraq. OF course, there would be no way to keep these ships there year round (and Im sure if we consulted Osama, he would be none too pleased about yet more infidels going to the ME to try to get Iraq to comply yet again). ANd even as you admit, he was again as cooperative as he always had been before. This was more of the same. Hans Blix said even now he refuses to come clean. He refused to allow access to scientists, etc etc. Again, we could not maintain troops on the border indefinitely and it was these troops that brought even a modicum of cooperation from Sadaam. But how is this at all different than what he pulled with the last inspection regime? It was the exact same thing. And why would we expect a different result this time.

But lets go a bit furhter. Suppose we were to allow inspections to go forward, how long would the inspections last,and what would determine that in fact Sadaam had completely closed the books, especially considering Sadaam was acting exactly as he had during the last inspection. And if inspectors found nothing would that then end the containment program? As Duelfler suggested, Sadaam maintained his programs, if not his stockpiles so would be able to reconstitute his programs in a very short period of time. And because of oil for food he had ammased a huge amount of cash and was trying to undermine containment. Do you honestly believe that, especially considering Iran next door has been developing its nuclear program, that Iraq would not redevelop his weapons?The whole argument was that Sadaam was just pretending to develop weapons becuase he didnt' want to seem weak in the region. Of course if Sadaam is not under the auspices of the UN wouldn't he at least pretend going forward to be developing weapons especially if he's no longer encumbered with sanctions. But more importantly since hes maintained his programs would he not simply rearm himself now that the UN and US were off his back. It would be completely retarded to expect anything but that he would rearm if he didn't already have his stockpiles which were simply moved or destroyed while we waited 18 months to go to war.

But now here's the thing CK. Your side kept going on and on about how we didn't need to go to war because containment was working.Except, because of your Bush lied meme, you have to also acknowledge then that Clinton was lying (unless you can somehow suggest that after Clinton bombed Iraq and signed iraqi liberation and all inspectors were removed that somehow sadaam stopped trying to procure weapons. There is simply nothign in the historical record that suggests anything changed in regards to what all the parties thought of Iraq, from between when Clinton left office and when Bush took office). And if Clinton were lying that means he wagged the dog. It also means that Gore was lying. It also means that the UN was complicit and contained an innocent country for no good reason and set up oil for food for its own benefit.

It also means that the UN since they were lying before would have to know that the inspection process was in fact a sham (because there were no weapons and they'd have to have known there were no weapons). And since the UN and clinton are both liars, how can you libs suggest that containment worked? You are all but admitting that you and your side, despite knowing that clinton and the UN are full of it would countenance continuing a containment which is causing death to iraqis and coruption in the UN for the sole purpose apparently of enriching security council members.
Further, why were dems so outraged that Gore lost the election then, considering you've all but acknowledged that clinton and by extension Gore were containing an innocent country. Bush had yet to do anything but be a conservative,and Clinton Gore according to you wagged the dog, and commited genocide against iraqis for bogus reasons. Since you couldn't know that Bush would go to war with Iraq, you would have to argue that you have no problem with continuing to contain iraq for bogus reasons and electing a leader who is a known liar to you SIMPLY because he's a democrat. What does that say about you ck?

Further, wasn't it the left arguing the whole time that Bush was going it alone,and we should listen to our neighbors and go the UN route? Why, since you already know that the UN could sanction Iraq for nearly 8 years, purely for completely fabricated reasons. doesn't the fact that they lied about the reasoning to contain iraq mean that they are not especially trustworthy? So then why knowing all this would you fault Bush for not consulting with these liars and murderers? What does that say about you and your side ck?

In short, if Bush lied, that means Clinton and the UN and Gore lied. Since you acknowledge that Clinton and the UN probably did lie then your and the lefts silence during a full 8 years of Clintons presidency really makes your support of peace suspect and makes your side look to be completely reprehensible. And it makes all the previous players involved completely shameful and corrupt. and since those players were previously the democrats and the UN then your support for the democrats and the UN as an organization make you a moral fraud.
The lefst saying that "containment worked" is then a moral outrage, because containment was immoral to begin with (since Iraq was never a thraet and everyone knew it), and its even doubly so since by not going to war you'd have to argue that we'd continue containment indefinitely(or allow sadaam to disarm) even though you know that those containing Iraq were doing so for bullsh*t reasons for their own economic benefit. So what does that make you ck?

And despite your arguments to the contrary it was the dems who gave Bush authorization to declare war (and also who gave auhorization for the iraqi liberation act). Since they had to have known that iraq wasn't a threat it makes them doubly shameful. Beucase they therefore went along with a bogus containment, then went along with a bogus iraqi liberation act, then went along with a bogus war, never once changing their tune until this war started taking longer than they wanted and they saw some political opportunities to get votes through demagoguery, and then they suddenly developed collective amnesia.

So to sum up. Everyones a liar, from bush down to clinton/gore to the dems, to the UN to left who supported containment which was based on fraud, to the right who supoprted war based on fraud in your mind.

ok then. That means you're a fraud.

Wow - that's a long comment and I'm not sure I have enough time to go through it all...
I'll start at the top ---

Yes, I believe the sanctions were mostly hurting the Iraqi people. Yes, I believe Clinton has a huge share of responsibility in it. Let's not forget the person who started the sanctions though, George Sr.
No, I do not accept the sanctions as a viable way of containment. Anything else?

And actually France, Russia and China (part of the UN) wanted to ease the sanctions, so I don't think it's as black and white against the UN as you try to make it.

I don't know how I said Clinton and the UN were lying the whole time - Please point to where I said that, and then maybe I can clarify myself. I believe I said that the weapons inspectors were being denied access right before clinton decided to bomb Iraq. According to the inspectors at that point in time, they were not able to do their jobs. So it actually lends more credibility to Clinton calling for the bombing campaign, and I'm not sure how that got construed as Clinton and the UN lying?

You state the only reason the inspectors came back to Iraq was because of the army around them. I agree. You also state there is no way that army could stay there for a year. I disagree... We've been there 4 years. I think that at that time, it was the perfect opportunity for the inspectors to do their job. All they needed was a little more time. And Saddam actually offered to be exiled (which would have solved so much more than this war has).

The difference between the inspectors under clinton and Bush was profound. Under Clinton they were refused access to certain sites. Under Bush they were allowed access but Saddam still wasn't cooperating fully. The inspectors, though, said they did not need Saddam to cooperate fully in order to accomplish their mission. We didn't let them finish though.

I'm not sure who was ever arguing containment was working. As you pointed out, many people were very upset with the sanctions. I think most people said War was not the answer, there must be a better way. One of those better ways would have been Saddam exiled. War, though, was not the answer. War means you failed, not something we should try to do.

I'm skipping around here because your post is huge... But you keep saying the UN was keeping the sanctions on Iraq... But don't you realize that's only because we wouldn't allow for any easing of the sanctions. The U.S. is such a huge part of the UN, that if we don't ok something, it's probably not going to happen.

Wow - Your whole post seems to be based on you thinking I said the UN and Clinton lied... where did I say that?

Take that away and your whole post crumbles...

CK wrote:
Yes, I believe the sanctions were mostly hurting the Iraqi people. Yes, I believe Clinton has a huge share of responsibility in it. Let's not forget the person who started the sanctions though, George Sr.
No, I do not accept the sanctions as a viable way of containment. Anything else? Anything else? so you don't think sanctions were a viable way of containment. Whether you do or don't they were used for the entirety of Clintons term. But what are you proposing should have been done if not sanctions? Wars out. Clearly despite sanctions 16 resolutions were passed and oil for food was setup and iraq STILL didnt' comply. What you can't and wont understand is that containment requires sanctiosn, no fly zones troops on the ground etc etc etc to be at all effective, and they still werent' effective, which is why they continued to be bobmed, why we passed the iraq liberation act why the UN had 16 resolutions passed. You can't accept containment without recognizing what is required to actually contain Iraq.

And actually France, Russia and China (part of the UN) wanted to ease the sanctions, so I don't think it's as black and white against the UN as you try to make it. They were trying to ease the sanctions because they were in bed with Sadaam Hussein. They are not innocent in this. They took full advantage of oil for food, for their gain and note taht its always russia and china and often france that are refusing to back tough sanctions which keep a country in line. Its as much to act as coutner to american power as much as its in their interest (because russia is often supplying weapons to these countries for example) to block sanctions. We see this when it comes to Iran, we see this when it comes to Darfur we see this nearly every time there's somethign requiring the security council to act.
I don't know how I said Clinton and the UN were lying the whole time - Please point to where I said that, and then maybe I can clarify myself. I believe I said that the weapons inspectors were being denied access right before clinton decided to bomb Iraq.
And they were denied access the time before that and the time beforet that etc etc.The point is, there is a LONG history not just of a single bombing of our involvement in Iraq and it involved Sadaam constantly cooperating and then not cooperating; hiding details and actual weapons and continuing to vioate terms. That is why there are 16 resolutions against iraq. That is why Clinton said there needed to be a regime change and signed the Iraqi liberation act. that is why if you do a google search of democratic senators who signed onto iraqi liberation they would say that sadaam posed a threat and had wmd's and was a terrorist state. And my point is, by you saying Bush lied, it ignores everything that happened prior to Bush taking office and everythying that was said or done,and implies somehow that the narrative started with BUsh. There is no possible way that a democrat could suggest that they were tricked into war if they had previously used the exact same rationale to vote for the Iraqi Liberation act. Bush Lied = Clinton Lied logically. you cannot point to the time in history where clinton bombed iraq for legitimate reasons to Bush went to war with iraq for illegitimate reasons when they are the exact same reasons. The info is the same, the difference is what was done with the info.One president decided to increase the no fly zones, contain iraq, impose tough sanctions, sign into law the iraqi liberation act and bomb iraq on multiple occasions based on the exact same rationale as the other president who decided to go to war with the same info. So how come in your mind, if there are no weapons clinton was able to bomb iraq and it was legitimate? How come, in your mind, if there are no weapons the UN passed 16 resolutions against Iraq? How come they are acting totally in good faith, when Bush is nothign but a liar. How come the security council passed 1441 unanimously if there were no weapons? Either the UN and clinton and Gore and the democrats were either lying or sincere in their beliefs that sadaam and Iraq posed a threat, otherwise they wouldnt' have done what they did. and liberals woudln't suggest that Iraq needed to be contained at all if they weren't operating under the assumption that Iraq posed a threat. So this whole Bush lied meme, is frankly tiresome. 1998 was when all the inspectors left. from 1998 till Bush took office there were no inspectors, iraq liberation had passed and more resolutiosn were passed. Then under Bush 1441 was passed which was sadaams last and final chance to comply. So in between the time that Clinton left office and Bush took office what specific event occured that woudl turn Bush into a liar, while prior to that everyone was acting in good faith. If you suggest Bush was lying, then you have to ackwnowledg that those before had to similarly be lying or at least point me to the spot where everyone who previously said Sadaam was a threat said Sadaam wasn't a threat. It never happened.

According to the inspectors at that point in time, they were not able to do their jobs. So it actually lends more credibility to Clinton calling for the bombing campaign, and I'm not sure how that got construed as Clinton and the UN lying?
The inspectors at the time of Clinton had a differnt leader than Hans Blix. Even hans blix said that Sadaam even now was not cooperating. And frankly, the situation was differetn under Bush then clintton. Under Clinton resolutions 1-15 were passed and didnt' get sadaam to account for his stockpiles. Under clinton iraq liberation had been passed and the whole history of iraq had unfurled. By the time Bush took office all that had already been done,9/11 had just occured and Sadaam was still not complying. Why would Bush assume that Sadaam would suddenly comply with resolutions and inspections that hadn't worked under clinton, or expect another inspection to suddenly get sadaam to play nice. Merely because he was president he shouldnt' suddenly restart the clock at 0 and pretend that the containment just started? No way. Clinton left office and dumped Iraq on Bush's doorstep with all that history of noncompliance, and iraq liberation act already come and gone and not producing the result of getting iRaq to comply. This is why 1441 was passed unanimously. Did Bush get the entire security to adopt 1441 because he lied, or because they had dealt with iraq and new what they were dealing with?

I'm not sure who was ever arguing containment was working. As you pointed out, many people were very upset with the sanctions.
Containment was not just sanctions. But you people seem to think you can get containment to succeed and not have to use sanctions. Countries like Iraq or Iran are not responding to nice talk.Which is why for example the security council is right now trying to work out tougher sanctions against Iran to get them to comply. But the argument was that war wasn't necessary BECUASE containment was working. In other words, we didn't have to go to war because the containment as it stood effectively kept sadaam in check. Now as Dulfeur suggested not only was ocontainment not working it was falling apart. Containment or war were the only possible solutions to deal with Iraq.

I think most people said War was not the answer, there must be a better way. One of those better ways would have been Saddam exiled. War, though, was not the answer. War means you failed, not something we should try to do.
What was the better way? there was containment or there was war. That's it. Either you keep Sadaam in check and get him to disarm through containment or you get him to disarm through war and regime change. Those were the only two options. So how did containment work? 16 resolutions, Iraqi liberation act, bombings, oil for food. If you were rooting for inspectors to go forward you would have to continue with the inspections. Since oil for food was revealed to be a fraud which undermined the security council and in fact enriched Sadaam who was supposed to be contained, it would have to be scrapped and tougher sanctions imposed. Or conversely if the coitnament was lifted and the UN got off Iraqs back Iraq would assuredly rearm himself, as the only thing preventing him from doing so was containment, and then we'd have to either go to war with him or recontain him all over again and start the process over.
And war, in this case doesn't mean you failed, war means you succeeded. The threat was sadaam and his regime,and its terrorist ties and WMD programs. These issues are all resolved and no longer pose a threat.There are of course new issues in iraq that have to be dealt with, but they don't involve sadaam hussein.
Now you say clinton had good reason to bomb iraq and wasn't in fact lying when he did so, so it must stand to reason that he also had good reason to pass the iraqi liberation act. He too had to deal with sadaam for his terms in office and as far back as 1998 recognized that a regime change was needed and that sadaam would never comply, and that once removed iraq would move towards democracy, the only difference between Bush and Clinton being how to achieve those results. So how well did Clinton do with Iraqi liberation? 5 years later and we were still involved in that quagmire talking about starting inspection yet one more time. And not something we tried to do implies that we hadn't tried anyting else. We've tried EVERYTHIGN else with Iraq, numerous times and it hadn't resolved the issue of the threat of Iraq. Regime change was the only solution. And this idea that sadaam would skip town. Crap. It didn't happen, and if he did it wouldn't change the issue so long as the baathists or sadaams goons or sadaaams henchmen were still in power. But in any case Bush told him to get out of Iraq and he didn't leave. Therefore to suggest that it was a serious alternative to removing him by force is a pipe dream and utterly ludicruos.

I'm skipping around here because your post is huge... But you keep saying the UN was keeping the sanctions on Iraq... But don't you realize that's only because we wouldn't allow for any easing of the sanctions. The U.S. is such a huge part of the UN, that if we don't ok something, it's probably not going to happen. How are you proposing we continue to contain Iraq without sanctions or pressure applied to Sadaam? Would containment work without no fly zones, wihtout constact inspections and without threats of bombings, troops ammassed on the border or statione in SA. This is known because this was required under clinton and Clinton still came to the conclusion that regime change was needed as far back as 1998 because all that didn't bring Iraq in line.
Also, you keep changing your rationale. Did Clinton ease the sanctions. Well in fact oil for food was started to ameliorate the tough sanctions. But if clinton didn't decrease sanctions was that because he was lying or telling the truth about the threat of sadaam. see, if you think he was telling the truth (which you suggest he was by saying he bombed Iraq legitimately) then wouldn't he have lifted or eased sanctions while still in office if he felt iraq were no longer a threat or less of a threat? But he didn't. And why would he. As of 1998 he passed iraqil liberation act and bombed iraq and all inspectors were kicked out of the country. What happened in the interim that would suggest that an easing of sanctions was warranted. Absolutely nothing. I know you're trying to blast bush with your snarky comment about the un here, but of course Clinton also dealt with the UN and didn't ease the sanctions. And if Clinton was acting in good faith to you then was he forcing the UN to act in a certain way when they passed resolutions 1-15.

Wow - Your whole post seems to be based on you thinking I said the UN and Clinton lied... where did I say that?
Sigh. So if they dindn't lie then why did they pass resolutions 1-15, contain iraq sanction iraq have no fly zones over iraq have multiple inspections of iraq and why did congress pass the iraqi liberation act. These are all done by parties either lying or telling the truth. If they are telling the truth then that suggests that until the end of clintons administration they viewed Iraq as a threat and did all those things accordingly as a reaction to their perception of Iraq being a threat. You therefore can't argue that Bush lied, because he viewed iraq in the exact same manner, using the same rationale and evidence to carry out his own actions, which were more severe, but which occured after all previous actions had not produced the intended results (namely removal of the threat of Sadaam husssein)But if you argue that Bush lied, then you can't argue that everything that occured not in the distant past but literally during the the previous administration wasn't similarly based on the same lies. Clinton either called for regime change and got congress to pass iraqi liberation act for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. If legitimate then he viewed sadaam as a threat worthy of a regime change, if illegitiate he was a wag the dog liar. That's for you to decide, but that will also determine whether bush lied or didn't lie because one follows the other.
COme up with one argument please and stick to it.

jr - you're acting a bit silly... You just want to continue the argument even if I agree with you... but then you'll throw a new twist in... what do you want me to say buddy?

First off though, containment did work. Saddam did not have the stockpiles of weapons he once had. Iraq's army was weaker than it had been in a long time when we attacked. I didn't agree with it, because even though it did work, it hurt too many innocent people for me to be alright with it. So you ask what I would propose then... Well, if I had the perfect answer for it, that would be too easy right? I imagine it would be a combination of force and diplomacy. I didn't have a problem with amassing our army to make Saddam cooperate - and he was to an extent... even offered an exile... But there are dozens of ways to avoid war, unfortunately Bush didn't seem too interested in them... AND YES!! Clinton did no good on that either!!! jeez, it's like you will die unless I trash Clinton a little bit too...

As far as France, Russia and China --- Yes, their aim is to check American power. That's kind of what the UN is for --- to make sure most countries have a chance to do something that will benefit them, and keep another country's power in check... I understand we are both Americans and would like to see America be the most powerful country ever; but if you can look at it from a 3rd person pov, then it might not be such a good thing for us to have unfettered power.

Your argument about me saying Bush lied (which, again, I don't recall saying... I said he didn't give the inspectors enough time) is complete Horse Manure. It's the greatest "blame the other guy" crap ever. I don't care if Clinton thought they had chemical weapons. I have told you a gazillion times I wasn't happy with Clinton's handling of it. The FACT is that the people who really would know what's going on in Iraq, the weapons inspectors, asked for more time before the war started, so that they could be sure of what Saddam had or didn't have. Bush jumped the gun and it really seemed like he just sent the inspectors over there for a little show, trying to make everyone think he really was trying to determine how much a threat Saddam was. The FACT of the matter is that he DID NOT allow the weapons inspectors to do their job completely and Saddam Hussein WAS NOT a threat to the U.S. --- It's laughable to say he was.

Sigh --- You just can't get the part about Bush not allowing the inspectors to do their job. I could give a rat's ass what saddam did to hinder the inspectors in the past... The inspectors just before this war said they could finish their job and asked for more time and it was not given to them... What's so hard to grasp? Give the men some time damnit. If you are truly interested in finding out if he is a threat or not, then give the inspectors time to do their job!!

Nuff Said - Have a nice night