You mean the same news that every other media was reporting, that's true!

So do you think they were all lying by conspiracy or because everyone,
including Bush, believed the justification?

"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@I_Know.com> wrote in message
news:53n4j.74$Fn6.1@newsfe14.phx...

MioMyo wrote:

Well, like you said *****. They do speak the truth from time to time, and
this is finally a first for the Clinton News Network (CNN)!

Doubtful. This is the same CNN that helped Bush sell his lies in order to
justify the invasion of Iraq.

"The Pretzel" <pretzel@chokeonit.org> wrote in message
news:4751ca5f$0$16525$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

CNN's Brown called MoveOn.org "American insurgents"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711290002

During the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads
Work?, CNN anchor Campbell Brown said: "General David Petraeus made his
reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But when he came to Capitol Hill
in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal
anti-war group called MoveOn.org."

Brown also asserted that a MoveOn.org advertisement headlined "General
Petraeus or General Betray Us?" "became a huge news story because it
questioned the loyalty of a wartime commander, implying he was a
traitor." In asserting that the content of the advertisement generated
news coverage, Brown did not point out the claim by many commentators
that the ad "became a huge news story" because Republicans preferred to
talk about it rather than Petraeus' testimony before Congress about the
situation in Iraq:

* On the September 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host
Alan Colmes said to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA):

COLMES: Getting to the MoveOn.org ad, rather than talk about the
strategy, rather than talk about how well things are going in Iraq,
rather than debating whether what Petraeus is saying, what Bush wants to
do is the right future for the country, we're being sidetracked by
talking about an ad put out by an organization.

Doesn't that really help conservatives? Because if we were really
talking about the strategy and how poorly things were really going,
you'd have a harder fight.

* Time magazine columnist Michael Kinsley wrote in a September 19
column:

But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air
and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic
supporters is pretty comical.

It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted
to have this ad from which they can make an issue.

[...]

The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at this
point is the war. They'd far rather talk about this insult to General
Petraeus.

* Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in a September 20
online column:

But how did a newspaper advertisement, of all things, become such a
hot topic in the political discourse about the war? The answer:
Republicans in Washington see it as a winning issue.

That's the case even though there were legitimate concerns expressed
about Petraeus's selective use of statistics both before and after his
testimony; even though a Washington Post poll before his testimony
showed most Americans expected him to try to make things look better
than they are; and even though the newest polls clearly show the public
didn't buy what Petraeus was selling.

From the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads
Work?:

You mean the same news that every other media was reporting, that's
true!
So do you think they were all lying by conspiracy or because everyone,
including Bush, believed the justification?


"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@I_Know.com> wrote in message
news:53n4j.74$Fn6.1@newsfe14.phx...

MioMyo wrote:

Well, like you said *****. They do speak the truth from time to
time, and this is finally a first for the Clinton News Network
(CNN)!

Doubtful. This is the same CNN that helped Bush sell his lies in
order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

"The Pretzel" <pretzel@chokeonit.org> wrote in message
news:4751ca5f$0$16525$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

CNN's Brown called MoveOn.org "American insurgents"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711290002

During the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do
Negative Ads Work?, CNN anchor Campbell Brown said: "General David
Petraeus made his reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But
when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by
American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org."

Brown also asserted that a MoveOn.org advertisement headlined
"General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" "became a huge news story
because it questioned the loyalty of a wartime commander, implying
he was a traitor." In asserting that the content of the
advertisement generated news coverage, Brown did not point out the
claim by many commentators that the ad "became a huge news story"
because Republicans preferred to talk about it rather than
Petraeus' testimony before Congress about the situation in Iraq:

* On the September 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes,
co-host Alan Colmes said to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
(R-GA): COLMES: Getting to the MoveOn.org ad, rather than talk about
the
strategy, rather than talk about how well things are going in Iraq,
rather than debating whether what Petraeus is saying, what Bush
wants to do is the right future for the country, we're being
sidetracked by talking about an ad put out by an organization.

Doesn't that really help conservatives? Because if we were
really talking about the strategy and how poorly things were
really going, you'd have a harder fight.

* Time magazine columnist Michael Kinsley wrote in a September
19 column:

But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for
air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most
enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical.

It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously
delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue.

[...]

The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at
this point is the war. They'd far rather talk about this insult to
General Petraeus.

* Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in a September 20
online column:

But how did a newspaper advertisement, of all things, become
such a hot topic in the political discourse about the war? The
answer: Republicans in Washington see it as a winning issue.

That's the case even though there were legitimate concerns
expressed about Petraeus's selective use of statistics both before
and after his testimony; even though a Washington Post poll before
his testimony showed most Americans expected him to try to make
things look better than they are; and even though the newest polls
clearly show the public didn't buy what Petraeus was selling.

From the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative
Ads Work?: