Just heard it on the radio
Details to follow
Perhaps they exagerated on the radio
MSNBC calls the breach
Details to follow
Perhaps they exagerated on the radio
MSNBC calls the breach
Levee Broke In NO
- Thread starter tm37
- Start date
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Yes, lake is rising. Another foot and New Orleans will be back under water again.
Well, it'll suck if water comes in but let's be honest....it's hard to fvck up New Orleans anymore than it has already been fvcked up.
BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,772
- 14
- 81
All information is quoted!!!! FOR TRUTH
"Brit Hume -
November 8, 2001
Network news outlets have reported stories about civilian casualties in Afghanistan with caution, often noting that Taliban claims are nearly impossible to verify. But many outlets show no inclination to be equally careful when evaluating the Pentagon's line on casualties.
The host of Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume" (11/5/01) recently wondered why journalists should bother covering civilian deaths at all. "The question I have," said Hume, "is civilian casualties are historically, by definition, a part of war, really. Should they be as big news as they've been?"
The idea that civilian casualties have been "big news" in the U.S. is questionable, but the Fox pundits more or less agreed with Hume.
If journalists shouldn't cover civilian deaths because they are a normal part of war, does that principle apply to all war coverage? Dropping bombs is also standard procedure in a war; will Fox stop reporting airstrikes?
Fox's marketing slogan is "We report, you decide," but these Fox pundits have decided for you that some deaths aren't worth reporting. Then again, being honest journalists might not be the first order of business at the Fox News Channel.
This policy of consistently burying the facts about the impact of the war on Afghanistan must make the pundits at Fox proud. But journalists who care about the principles of the profession should be embarrassed.
--------
Bill O'Reilly -
September 21, 2001
As the news media prepare for war, some prominent journalists have been advocating military strategies that violate the laws of war and mirror the strategies of terrorists.
Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, the channel's most popular host, declared on his September 17 broadcast that if the Afghan government did not extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S., "the U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble-- the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads." O'Reilly went on to say:
"This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period."
O'Reilly added that in Iraq, "their infrastructure must be destroyed and the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain.... Maybe then the people there will finally overthrow Saddam." If Libya's Moammar Khadafy does not relinquish power and go into exile, "we bomb his oil facilities, all of them. And we mine the harbor in Tripoli. Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. We also destroy all the airports in Libya. Let them eat sand."
His tone remained the same a few nights later (9/19/01), as he recommended bombing Afghanistan "in strategic ways and hope that the people themselves would rise up and throw the Taliban out." Acknowledging that Afghanis "are starving as it is," O'Reilly recommended that the U.S. intensify civilian suffering by knocking out "what little infrastructure they have" and blowing up "every truck you see" to make sure that "there's not going to be anything to eat." >p>Then Mr. no spin did some spinning himself after these comments, on his September 25 show, when guest Phil Donahue called him on this bloodthirsty plan, O?Reilly denied that he had ever threatened civilians: "I never said bomb a civilian. I would bomb military targets. I would bomb military targets.... I'm not talking about civilians."
It's unclear how O'Reilly is able to reconcile his claim that "we should not target civilians" with his calls for decimating the infrastructures of at least three countries and starving their populations.
People sent hundreds of letters to O?Reilly after his September 17 program, urging him to consider the ramifications of his rhetoric--and the fact that bombing civilian targets and using starvation as a weapon are war crimes. Could that activism have led O?Reilly to spin away from his earlier bloodthirsty scheme?
The Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1, Part IV, Chapter III, Article 54) are very clear that "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited." They specify that "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," including water and food supplies, are not legal military targets. Violating these strictures, which are legally binding on the U.S., would constitute a war crime, and might be considered a crime against humanity.
The Geneva Conventions state that combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives" (Part IV, Chapter I, Article 48).
If actually carried out, the proposals made by people like o'reilly would almost certainly result in civilian deaths totaling in the millions. Suggesting that killing large numbers of civilians is an acceptable political strategy only legitimizes the logic of terrorism.
-------
John Gibson -
December 20, 2000
Several news organizations have begun the process of evaluating the disputed ballots in the state of Florida. Reporters intend to use a variety of methods to help answer lingering questions about who might have actually won the vote in the state if a hand recount had not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One prominent journalist at a national news outlet, however, advocates a different approach. John Gibson of Fox News Channel (12/15/00) would rather not know what really happened in Florida: "Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing? I mean, should we burn those ballots, preserve them in amber, or shred them?"
Journalists are supposed to criticize government officials for suppressing information or destroying evidence-- not advocate such actions. If journalism is to contribute to a democratic society, it must frequently expose the country to unpleasant truths. But for Gibson, guest-hosting Fox's popular "The O'Reilly Factor" program, the point of journalism is to preserve the legitimacy of those in power: "George Bush is going to be president. And who needs to know that he's not a legitimate president? Al Gore? Jesse Jackson? His political opponents? How does it do any good for the country to find out that, by somebody's count, the wrong guy is president?"
Gibson did suggest that the pursuit of truth could merely be delayed until it no longer mattered: "How about, if you want to do this thing, we lock those ballots up until George Bush is not president, so nobody can go use these ballots to undermine his position, to undermine the position of this country, to throw this country into chaos. If you want to know, if historians want to know, fine. Know some day in the future. You don't need to know now because he is president now."
Looking at public records is a crucial aspect of newsgathering-- a right that media outlets and journalists go to court to protect and preserve. It's distressing when a prominent journalist thinks the public's right to know should not infringe on the prestige of the president-elect.
While Fox News Channel strenuously disputes the idea that it has a right-wing tilt, Gibson's comments do seem to put the political health of a Republican office-holder ahead of normal journalistic principles. It's hard to imagine Fox suggesting that embarrassing facts about Bill Clinton should not be reported because they might make him seem less "legitimate."
--------
Fox News on The Clinton Vandalized The White House and Air Force One Story
May 21, 2001
During the White House transition in January, one story proved irresistible to many conservative pundits: Departing Clinton staffers had gone on a wild rampage and "trashed" or "vandalized" the White House, even looting Air Force One. Allegations of the Clinton aides' reckless destruction of public property swept through the media. For some, the story symbolized the difference between a morally compromised Clinton presidency and a more dignified, honorable Bush administration.
An official government investigation, however, reveals one major problem with these stories: They apparently never happened. According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."
Ironically, the investigation came in response to a request from Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), and many conservatives who had assumed that the wild rumors would be confirmed by an official inquiry. That wasn't the case. (The "looting" of Air Force One had also been denied months ago by officials at Andrews Air Force base -- Kansas City Star, 2/9/01).
Leading the cry against the trashing of the White House was the Fox News Channel. Virtually every major Fox personality reported it as fact, often expressing their own personal outrage. Guests on the channel chimed in, condemning the Clintons and their staffers. Consider the following reports:
--Brit Hume (1/25/01): "By the way, the reported vandalism in those White House offices now includes power and phone cords cut... trash dumped on floors, desk drawers emptied onto floors, pornographic pictures left in computer printers, scatological messages left on voice mail, and cabinets and drawers glued shut. And the Washington Times reports that the presidential 747 that flew Bill and Hillary Clinton to New York on inauguration day was stripped bare. The plane's porcelain, china... and silverware, and salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases, nearly all items bearing the presidential seal, were taken by Clinton staffers who went along for the ride. The Washington Times quoted a military steward as saying that even a supply of toothpaste was stolen from a compartment under a sink."
--Sean Hannity (1/26/01): "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out."
--Fred Barnes (1/27/01): "Now, you know what else helped Bush have such a good week? It was the contrast with the Clintons' sleazy departure from the White House, which is a hot story in itself.... You had the trashing of the White House itself. We don't know how much, but the typewriters, the voicemail, the graffiti on the walls and so on, reflecting, I think, a real bitterness that they should not have reflected, at least in that."
--Bill O'Reilly (1/26/01): "I mean, the price tag right now is about $200,000, so that's a felony right there."
--Oliver North, radio host (1/26/01, "Hannity & Colmes"): "There's an awful lot about this whole administration that never looked right to many of us. And of course, their closing act in this whole thing, which was basically trashing the White House, you know, pillaging what was available on Air Force One.... We should expect from white trash what they did at the White House."
--Paula Zahn (1/26/01): "All right, but this is the White House, for God's sakes. We're not talking about people living in a fraternity."
--Tony Snow (1/28/01): "When I first heard about reported vandalism by disgruntled Clinton-Gore staffers, I got a little bit steamed. I've got a certain affection for the White House, due in no small part to my own service there during the first Bush administration. So, inspired by my experience and fond memories, I dashed off an angry newspaper column about the incident. But then the Bush team did something very wise. It did nothing, and that was the right choice. Sometimes you have to look past little idiocies and outbursts, understanding that life's just too short to fret over such things."
"A little bit steamed" is putting it mildly: As the Kansas City Star reported (5/17/01), one of Snow's syndicated newspaper columns was nearly a case study in dishonest reporting. Snow wrote that the White House "was a wreck" and that Air Force One "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister.""
"Brit Hume -
November 8, 2001
Network news outlets have reported stories about civilian casualties in Afghanistan with caution, often noting that Taliban claims are nearly impossible to verify. But many outlets show no inclination to be equally careful when evaluating the Pentagon's line on casualties.
The host of Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume" (11/5/01) recently wondered why journalists should bother covering civilian deaths at all. "The question I have," said Hume, "is civilian casualties are historically, by definition, a part of war, really. Should they be as big news as they've been?"
The idea that civilian casualties have been "big news" in the U.S. is questionable, but the Fox pundits more or less agreed with Hume.
If journalists shouldn't cover civilian deaths because they are a normal part of war, does that principle apply to all war coverage? Dropping bombs is also standard procedure in a war; will Fox stop reporting airstrikes?
Fox's marketing slogan is "We report, you decide," but these Fox pundits have decided for you that some deaths aren't worth reporting. Then again, being honest journalists might not be the first order of business at the Fox News Channel.
This policy of consistently burying the facts about the impact of the war on Afghanistan must make the pundits at Fox proud. But journalists who care about the principles of the profession should be embarrassed.
--------
Bill O'Reilly -
September 21, 2001
As the news media prepare for war, some prominent journalists have been advocating military strategies that violate the laws of war and mirror the strategies of terrorists.
Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, the channel's most popular host, declared on his September 17 broadcast that if the Afghan government did not extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S., "the U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble-- the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads." O'Reilly went on to say:
"This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period."
O'Reilly added that in Iraq, "their infrastructure must be destroyed and the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain.... Maybe then the people there will finally overthrow Saddam." If Libya's Moammar Khadafy does not relinquish power and go into exile, "we bomb his oil facilities, all of them. And we mine the harbor in Tripoli. Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. We also destroy all the airports in Libya. Let them eat sand."
His tone remained the same a few nights later (9/19/01), as he recommended bombing Afghanistan "in strategic ways and hope that the people themselves would rise up and throw the Taliban out." Acknowledging that Afghanis "are starving as it is," O'Reilly recommended that the U.S. intensify civilian suffering by knocking out "what little infrastructure they have" and blowing up "every truck you see" to make sure that "there's not going to be anything to eat." >p>Then Mr. no spin did some spinning himself after these comments, on his September 25 show, when guest Phil Donahue called him on this bloodthirsty plan, O?Reilly denied that he had ever threatened civilians: "I never said bomb a civilian. I would bomb military targets. I would bomb military targets.... I'm not talking about civilians."
It's unclear how O'Reilly is able to reconcile his claim that "we should not target civilians" with his calls for decimating the infrastructures of at least three countries and starving their populations.
People sent hundreds of letters to O?Reilly after his September 17 program, urging him to consider the ramifications of his rhetoric--and the fact that bombing civilian targets and using starvation as a weapon are war crimes. Could that activism have led O?Reilly to spin away from his earlier bloodthirsty scheme?
The Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1, Part IV, Chapter III, Article 54) are very clear that "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited." They specify that "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," including water and food supplies, are not legal military targets. Violating these strictures, which are legally binding on the U.S., would constitute a war crime, and might be considered a crime against humanity.
The Geneva Conventions state that combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives" (Part IV, Chapter I, Article 48).
If actually carried out, the proposals made by people like o'reilly would almost certainly result in civilian deaths totaling in the millions. Suggesting that killing large numbers of civilians is an acceptable political strategy only legitimizes the logic of terrorism.
-------
John Gibson -
December 20, 2000
Several news organizations have begun the process of evaluating the disputed ballots in the state of Florida. Reporters intend to use a variety of methods to help answer lingering questions about who might have actually won the vote in the state if a hand recount had not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One prominent journalist at a national news outlet, however, advocates a different approach. John Gibson of Fox News Channel (12/15/00) would rather not know what really happened in Florida: "Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing? I mean, should we burn those ballots, preserve them in amber, or shred them?"
Journalists are supposed to criticize government officials for suppressing information or destroying evidence-- not advocate such actions. If journalism is to contribute to a democratic society, it must frequently expose the country to unpleasant truths. But for Gibson, guest-hosting Fox's popular "The O'Reilly Factor" program, the point of journalism is to preserve the legitimacy of those in power: "George Bush is going to be president. And who needs to know that he's not a legitimate president? Al Gore? Jesse Jackson? His political opponents? How does it do any good for the country to find out that, by somebody's count, the wrong guy is president?"
Gibson did suggest that the pursuit of truth could merely be delayed until it no longer mattered: "How about, if you want to do this thing, we lock those ballots up until George Bush is not president, so nobody can go use these ballots to undermine his position, to undermine the position of this country, to throw this country into chaos. If you want to know, if historians want to know, fine. Know some day in the future. You don't need to know now because he is president now."
Looking at public records is a crucial aspect of newsgathering-- a right that media outlets and journalists go to court to protect and preserve. It's distressing when a prominent journalist thinks the public's right to know should not infringe on the prestige of the president-elect.
While Fox News Channel strenuously disputes the idea that it has a right-wing tilt, Gibson's comments do seem to put the political health of a Republican office-holder ahead of normal journalistic principles. It's hard to imagine Fox suggesting that embarrassing facts about Bill Clinton should not be reported because they might make him seem less "legitimate."
--------
Fox News on The Clinton Vandalized The White House and Air Force One Story
May 21, 2001
During the White House transition in January, one story proved irresistible to many conservative pundits: Departing Clinton staffers had gone on a wild rampage and "trashed" or "vandalized" the White House, even looting Air Force One. Allegations of the Clinton aides' reckless destruction of public property swept through the media. For some, the story symbolized the difference between a morally compromised Clinton presidency and a more dignified, honorable Bush administration.
An official government investigation, however, reveals one major problem with these stories: They apparently never happened. According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."
Ironically, the investigation came in response to a request from Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), and many conservatives who had assumed that the wild rumors would be confirmed by an official inquiry. That wasn't the case. (The "looting" of Air Force One had also been denied months ago by officials at Andrews Air Force base -- Kansas City Star, 2/9/01).
Leading the cry against the trashing of the White House was the Fox News Channel. Virtually every major Fox personality reported it as fact, often expressing their own personal outrage. Guests on the channel chimed in, condemning the Clintons and their staffers. Consider the following reports:
--Brit Hume (1/25/01): "By the way, the reported vandalism in those White House offices now includes power and phone cords cut... trash dumped on floors, desk drawers emptied onto floors, pornographic pictures left in computer printers, scatological messages left on voice mail, and cabinets and drawers glued shut. And the Washington Times reports that the presidential 747 that flew Bill and Hillary Clinton to New York on inauguration day was stripped bare. The plane's porcelain, china... and silverware, and salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases, nearly all items bearing the presidential seal, were taken by Clinton staffers who went along for the ride. The Washington Times quoted a military steward as saying that even a supply of toothpaste was stolen from a compartment under a sink."
--Sean Hannity (1/26/01): "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out."
--Fred Barnes (1/27/01): "Now, you know what else helped Bush have such a good week? It was the contrast with the Clintons' sleazy departure from the White House, which is a hot story in itself.... You had the trashing of the White House itself. We don't know how much, but the typewriters, the voicemail, the graffiti on the walls and so on, reflecting, I think, a real bitterness that they should not have reflected, at least in that."
--Bill O'Reilly (1/26/01): "I mean, the price tag right now is about $200,000, so that's a felony right there."
--Oliver North, radio host (1/26/01, "Hannity & Colmes"): "There's an awful lot about this whole administration that never looked right to many of us. And of course, their closing act in this whole thing, which was basically trashing the White House, you know, pillaging what was available on Air Force One.... We should expect from white trash what they did at the White House."
--Paula Zahn (1/26/01): "All right, but this is the White House, for God's sakes. We're not talking about people living in a fraternity."
--Tony Snow (1/28/01): "When I first heard about reported vandalism by disgruntled Clinton-Gore staffers, I got a little bit steamed. I've got a certain affection for the White House, due in no small part to my own service there during the first Bush administration. So, inspired by my experience and fond memories, I dashed off an angry newspaper column about the incident. But then the Bush team did something very wise. It did nothing, and that was the right choice. Sometimes you have to look past little idiocies and outbursts, understanding that life's just too short to fret over such things."
"A little bit steamed" is putting it mildly: As the Kansas City Star reported (5/17/01), one of Snow's syndicated newspaper columns was nearly a case study in dishonest reporting. Snow wrote that the White House "was a wreck" and that Air Force One "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister.""
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter