Why Libs Hate Fox News

[Dirt McGirt]

The liberal media has an agenda - to promote Dems and liberalism. That is the problem I have with the the liberal media

And what, in your opinion, should be done about that RSR?

 

[Dr Grump]

Is so few people watch Fox News, and Fox News is so unimportant, why do libs hate Fox News so much?

So now you can only dislike a shilly, propaganda outlet if it is popular??

 

[red states rule]

So now you can only dislike a shilly, propaganda outlet if it is popular??

I never said I liked ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC

 

[jasendorf]

Libs usually dismiss Alan as such. Strange they had a high opinion of him BEFORE he accepted employment at Fox News

None of us had even heard of him before Fox.

 

[red states rule]

None of us had even heard of him before Fox.

He had his own radio show for three hours a day after Rush. I understand why you may not have heard of him. Not to many people listen to liberal talk radio

 

[red states rule]

Libs have a nasty habit of defedning terrorists and bashing America


WashPost Hypes Pentagon Protest With Ramsey Clark, Leaves Out His Saddam Lawyering
Posted by Tim Graham on March 16, 2007 - 07:43.
The Washington Post's reverence for protests -- the leftist ones, that is -- is clearly on display on the front of Friday's Metro section, with advance publicity for a Saturday "peace" march on the Pentagon starring Ramsey Clark, fresh from his unsuccessful defense lawyering for Saddam Hussein. (That fact is never mentioned in Steve Vogel's article.) On roughly the fourth anniversary of the initial blitz on Baghdad and forty years after the violent "levitate the Pentagon" protests of 1967, the Post splashes photographs down most of the front page of Metro, of 1967 at the top and 2007 at the bottom. The story sprawled out across most of B-3, and included another story by Michael Ruane on Christian "peace witness" at the White House.

Two months ago, the Post gave the March for Life and against abortion a tiny box inside the paper on the day of the rally, complete with "pro-choice" events. That could not be defined as splashy pre-protest publicity.

Vogel's report carried the headline: "Once More to the Pentagon: Demonstrators Evoke Historic Confrontation In Planning March, Rally Opposing Iraq War." At the top of the page, a caption of a 1967 photograph read: "The Oct. 21 march marked a turning point in public sentiment toward the Vietnam War, former attorney general Ramsey Clark says." Clark emerges later in the story as well:

"The 1967 march wasn't the biggest, but in some ways it's the most historically significant because of the target," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, the main sponsor of tomorrow's protest. "It represented a shift in public opinion."

In tying their protest to the Oct. 21, 1967, march, organizers say they are capitalizing on a similar climate among angry voters who believe the results of November elections have been ignored.

Ramsey Clark, who as attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson helped oversee the administration's preparations for the march, said that day shifted the ground under the government. "From that moment, I got the feeling that we'd reached a turning point in the commitment of many people to ending the war in Vietnam," Clark said in an interview this week.

Whether today's feelings match those of 40 years ago is another question. Clark will be among the speakers tomorrow. "I can't tell you that we have the depth of passion or breadth of commitment today that we had then," Clark said.

Vogel obviously did not work on this story for a day or two. It reads like a reverent history of the 1967 protest. While it does include testimony from Pentagon personnel who recount the violence and vulgarity of protesters, it elevates the protest into a historical touchstone or turning point, as Clark claimed in the caption. Vogel's second paragraph betrays his attraction to the protesters and their apparently earth-shattering activism:

The 1967 march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War became a touchstone event in American history, one that pitted U.S. citizens against "the true and high church of the military-industrial complex," as marcher and author Norman Mailer put it.

Vogel promotes to Post readers how buses and vans will come from all over to protest. (The same was true of the March for Life, but Post readers weren't told that a few weeks ago):

Buses, vans and caravans from across the United States are coming, organizers say, with veterans, soldiers and military family members marching in the first rank of the demonstration. Heading across the Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Pentagon north parking lot, the demonstrators will follow literally in the steps of the earlier protesters. A counter-demonstration in support of the war is also planned for tomorrow.

Will the counter-demonstrators get their own picture in addition to that measly sentence? They certainly did at the March for Life.

Vogel uses no labels to describe Clark, Becker, the ANSWER Coalition, or any other radical leftist that's quoted. The only references to ideology were vague descriptions of historical perceptions of the 1967 march:

The 1967 march still raises emotions at both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, it is remembered as a time when peaceful marchers were confronted by bayonet-wielding soldiers and beaten. On the right, the march is recalled as a disgraceful event during which military police were subjected to terrible abuse from protesters.

History shows that both views hold elements of truth. Soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish. Some defenseless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled off.

In his article on the White House "Christian peace witness," Ruane used the P-word just once:

The event is sponsored by the District-based Sojourners/Call to Renewal, a progressive religious group, along with the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and more than two dozen other Protestant and Catholic groups.

Ruane also noted that activist Celeste Zappala, whose son died in Iraq, will be there, and so will Taylor Branch, a Friend of Bill (Clinton) and the author of several books on Martin Luther King Jr.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11457

 

[red states rule]

CBS's Plante Claims No One Thought Clinton's U.S. Attorneys Firings Were Political
Posted by Justin McCarthy on March 15, 2007 - 10:37.
CBS finally picked up the Clinton administration’s record of firing 93 federal prosecutors, but they still rushed to Clinton’s defense with false assertions. On the March 15 edition of "The Early Show," reporter Bill Plante sought to make this distinction between the Bush and Clinton firings.

"Mr. Bush isn't the first president to fire US attorneys and replace them with his own appointments. At the beginning of his first term, President Clinton cleaned house, ousting all 93 US attorneys. Not unusual, they serve at the pleasure of the president. The difference this time, the charge that politics played a role in their dismissal."

Not true. The Washington Post reported on March 26, 1993 that Republicans did charge politics in President Clinton’s mass firing. An excerpt from the article:

President Clinton yesterday attempted to rebut Republican criticism of the administration's decision to seek resignations from all U.S. attorneys, saying what he was asking was routine and less political than piecemeal replacements.

"All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one."

But Republicans in Congress pressed their criticism of the decision, announced Tuesday by Attorney General Janet Reno, with Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) describing the decision as "Reno's March Massacre."

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) urged the administration to allow Jay B. Stephens, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to stay on the job until he completes his investigation of the House Post Office scandal and the role House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) may have played in it.

Stephens said Tuesday he was about a month away from "a critical decision with regard to resolution" of the probe.

The transcript of the entire story is below.

HANNAH STORM: Thanks, Russ. There are growing calls for the president to get rid of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the wake of the prosecutor firing scandal. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more on that. Good morning, Bill."

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Hannah. That's right, all the Democrats on Capitol Hill and at least one Republican want the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales for the way the handling of the firing of those U.S. attorneys took place. The president is defending Gonzales for now, but he's leaving himself room to change his mind, if necessary.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH: Mistakes were made and I'm frankly not happy about them. Because there is a lot of confusion over what really has been a customary practice by the president.

PLANTE: Democrats in Congress charge at least some of the eight US attorneys were fired for political reasons. The president denied that and said that he told Gonzales he needs to set the record straight.

BUSH: We talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decisions it made.

PLANTE: Congressional Democrats are threatening to subpoena former White House counsel Harriet Miers and political counselor Karl Rove.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): We just want all the facts to come out. If some bad things were done, they should come to light.

PLANTE: Mr. Bush isn't the first president to fire US attorneys and replace them with his own appointments. At the beginning of his first term, President Clinton cleaned house, ousting all 93 US attorneys. Not unusual, they serve at the pleasure of the president. The difference this time, the charge that politics played a role in their dismissal.

FORMER US ATTORNEY JOHN MCKAY: I asked for the reasons that I was being asked to resign and I was given no reasons.

PLANTE: Former US attorney John McKay was fired in December for reasons that he now believes had nothing to do with the way he did his job, but everything to do with how he didn't play politics.

MCKAY: Any individual prosecutor is replaceable. What's not replaceable is our reputation for fairness, our reputation for independence from political influences.

PLANTE: The 93 U.S. Attorneys are the government's prosecutors.

ANDREW COHEN, CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: They are the backbone of the federal legal system because they take the policies and the laws and they implement them and they enforce them.

PLANTE: The question now is whether the White House will allow Miers, the former counsel, and Rove to testify. Fred Fielding, who is now the White House counsel, went to Capitol Hill yesterday. He's a veteran of Watergate and Iran-Contra, to see what could be worked out. So we'll wait and find out soon, Hannah.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11439

 

[red states rule]

So now you can only dislike a shilly, propaganda outlet if it is popular??

I wonder if the liberal media will report this story


Pelosi hears boos at AIPAC
By Ian Swanson
March 13, 2007
Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

Boehner sought to link the fight in Iraq to the future of Israel, as he said a failure in Iraq would pose a direct threat to Israel.

Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable.

“The war in Iraq fails on all three counts,” Pelosi said. Some of the crowd applauded before catcalls and boos could be heard. A spokesman for AIPAC argued the boos were in response to those clapping for Pelosi.

AIPAC leaders have said about 6,000 of their members are in town for this week’s annual meeting, which ends today. Members are set to lobby individual lawmakers on the Hill for the rest of today. A priority for the group is to convince Congress to approve tougher sanctions on Iran, which is seen as a growing threat to Israel.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-03-13.html