PBS NewsHour:Columnists Discuss Public's Perception on Iraq

PBS On-line ^ | 07-10-2007

[MissionMan]

The link goes to the mp3 of the interview.

I found this to be one of the most one-sided liberally biased interview discussions I've heard on television news almost ever.

The news media is doing all it can to undermine the war in Iraq, the people hear all of the biased news from MSM and get afraid and want to give up, then the politicians, who have no cojones -- get the polling data and want to redouble their efforts to get out now -- to keep themselves in power in Washington.

Warning -- watch the video at your own risk -- it was one of the most blatantly biased displays of journalism I've seem in many months. There was not even a whiff at objectivity.

[MissionMan]

Correction — it’s audio only not video.

[Nervous Tick]

>> majority of Americans strongly favor a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq

Well, I don’t belong to THAT majority.

But I do proudly belong to the group that favors a (short!) timeline for cutting federal funding for PBS...

[hsalaw]

Well, being as it’s PBS, I don’t need to be told that they’re in favor of cut-and-run, and want us all to believe that’s what the American people want. PBS is a waste of taxpayer money and ought to be cut loose from the government trough.

[umgud]

PBS NewsHour:Columnists Communists Discuss Public's Perception on Iraq

[petertare]

Basu is a Des Moines Red Star irregular columnist. I have never read any of her work that did not begin and end with a heavy left list. It really is a waste of trees as the column proceeds diagonally down the paper without any hesitation.

[Doctor Raoul]

If the Fairness Doctrine were actually fair, the only way you'd be able to enforce that at PBS would be at gunpoint.

How else would you get idiolgues like NPR's Nina "Angel of Death" Tottenberg to stop wishing folks with opposing opinions dead?

[MissionMan]

The thing that really got me was that usually — they have someone — at least one — conservative — to balance the whole discussion about whatever subject they’re talking about.

This time it was three people who are journalists and for pulling out of Iraq.

No one there to support the idea of staying and finishing the job.

No effort at fairness or balance.

I had not seen PBS do this before. I’m not saying they’ve not done it — I was just surprised by their blatant bias.

[Tzimisce]

...gee, what do you think Left wing PBS’ conclusion is going to be?

[Tzimisce]

Let’s all act surprised when they find most people against the war....

[Last Dakotan]

I had a drive this morning so I listened to PBS for the first time in a while - what a bunch of crap!

Every single point made about the war was from the negative. The cost, the casualties etc. The point of view that we should wait out the time agreed Gen. Petraeus when he was given his mission wasn't even considered.

[MissionMan]

Read carefully.

I said I had not seen them be this blatant.

Usually in roundtables they mask their bias. They didn’t even try this time.

That was the surprising thing to me.

[Intolerant in NJ]

A recent USA-Gallup poll shows a majority of Americans strongly favor a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq...I wonder if this and other polls supposedly showing that "a majority of Americans" want a timeline also ask such questions as "what do you think will happen in Iraq once we are gone?" and "what effect would our pre-determined withdrawal from Iraq have on US security?" - and if they do, do they ask the questions before or after asking if we should withdraw according a timeline - maybe if responders were encouraged to think a bit before the big question, they wouldn't be so quick to want to cut and run.......

[do the dhue]

But I do proudly belong to the group that favors a (short!) time line for cutting federal funding for PBS...

HEAR HEAR!!

Well, I don’t belong to THAT majority.

I say we leave when the Iraqi Government asks us. The way I see it, Congress has no authority in the execution of the war. The President is the Commander and Chief. Congress votes for war and funds the war and that is it.

The Congress acts so boldly in telling the President how to run the war. How many surrender packages have the rats put together now? Like they have a right too tell the President how many Troops he can have. I thought that was up to the President and his Generals. I don't want politicians in Congress running the war. I want the President and his Generals making decisions. Is Congress privy to all the information the Generals have? Am I? Any of us? What makes Congress think they have the right to tell the President how a war can be executed?

Am I wrong? Can they actually dictate the execution of a war by passing laws?

[okie01]

it was one of the most blatantly biased displays of journalism I've seem in many months. There was not even a whiff at objectivity.

The media no longer practices "journalism". In most reports, there isn't even a hint of it. Certainly, none of it with respect to Iraq.

We are well-advised not to believe any MSM reporting on the subject -- since it is generally driven by the left's political agenda.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Am I wrong? Can they actually dictate the execution of a war by passing laws?

IMO, they can’t really dictate it except by cutting off funding... and they don’t have the guts to do that.

But they can *influence* the outcome. And they will, or die trying.

They are vermin.

[tobyhill]

This is the exact reason I quit reading the Dallas Morning News, it’s turned into more ghetto trash.

[do the dhue]

I have been asking this all night. I received an answer that I don't think I like:

Congress does not have the power to execute wars, but it most certainly DOES HAVE the power to deny or grant funding for them. The power of the purse IS meant to be a check on presidential power to make sure that he doesn't run off starting wars without the consent of the people's representatives. The struggle between the branches of government which is currently unfolding is meant to happen under the design of the constitution so that the branches intentionally use their own ambitions to check each other. If Congress wants to take the blame for this with the public, then let them fight it out with the President. Congress will take the blame for it in the public eye, so if the public wants to end the war then thats the democratic process in action (sometimes democracies do stupid things but thats the way it is).

However, if the people perceive this as wrecklesness, then Congress will pay the political price for it. Besides the Congress can't do anything in the face of a veto without 2/3 majorities and will thus probably be forced to pass the spending bill anyway, just like last time. As for separation of powers,the power of the purse is a constitutional check against the president. However, as you may have noticed the question of where one branch's power ends and another branch's power begins has a tendency to blur the lines between the branches of government. Just look what the Interstate commerce clause did to weaken federalism. The Congress is also the only federal entity that has the right to raise troops. However, once they have been called forth they are under the presidents command. - by old Republic

I don't like it because Congress could pass a law that affects the execution of the war. It sickens me actually. Is Congress privy to all this information our Generals, our Intelligence Agencies, and our President is privy to? Not all of them are. We have committees. But I don't think they can seriously debate the execution of a war without compromising it.

They should get behind the President and the Troops and if all fails, then they can stop funding the war if that is what the people want.

[Grizzled Bear]

Columnists Discuss Public’s Perception on Iraq

---

Because truth is beyond their reckoning!

[Godwin1]

Navarette? He’s a foreigner, isn’t he?