WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

  • dubla


    you do realize that the mass media in the US is controlled largely by bush and not the opposition right?

    im just curious as to your opinion on this....who "controlled" the media before bush entered the white house? clinton?


  • Realist


    in case of a military conflict the mass media pretty much always goes conform with the public gov. standpoint.

    to think the mass media is not in the hands of the lobbyist groups that run the white house (regardless of whether its democrats or republicans) is a tad naive.

  • dubla


    so its only during a military conflict, or all the time?

    and was that the answer to my question then? you do think clinton "controlled" the media before bush became president?


  • Realist


    the question is rather who controls whom. most of the media is controlled by the same groups that largly control the legislation in the US. it is quite irrelevant whether a republican or a democrat is in the white house.

    there are only 6 conglomerates that control over 90% of the media.

    GENERAL ELECTRIC --(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)

    Television Holdings:
    * NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
    * NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
    * CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
    The "MS" in MSNBC
    means microsoft
    The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected. ==================================================

    Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
    whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
    Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group)

    Television Holdings:
    * CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
    * CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
    * Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
    * Group W Satellite Communications.
    Other Holdings:
    * Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
    * Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
    * Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.
    Television Holdings:
    * Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel (joint owner), Flix.
    * 20 major market US stations.
    Media Holdings:
    * Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
    * Simon & Schuster Publishing.
    DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640 thousand to GW's 2000 campaign)
    Television Holdings:
    * ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
    * ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
    * ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
    * Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
    Media Holdings:
    * Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
    * Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
    * 3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
    * Hyperion book publishers.
    * Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
    Other Holdings:
    * Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
    * All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.

    TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
    America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
    Television Holdings:
    * CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
    * Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
    Media Holdings:
    * HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
    * Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
    * 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
    Other Holdings:
    * Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling.
    NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch) (donations see bottom note)
    Television Holdings:
    * Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
    * Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%).
    * The Golf Channel (33%).
    * Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight.
    * 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian.
    * 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard.
    * HarperCollins books.
    * Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League.
    * Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines.
    * Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).

  • dubla


    youre getting around the question here. i see your figures for donations to gw bush, etc........but you havent answered my question. this question IS NOT ABOUT BUSH (you seem to keep coming back to gwb for some reason). WHO "controlled" the media prior to bush being in office?


  • dubla


    and, btw....if the person in office is irrelevant, then why do you always make it about bush? why not make it about g.e., disney, etc?


  • Realist


    i just copy pasted the info about who owns which channel. the donations are irrelevant. i am pretty sure they made similar donations to the democrats.

    i think you misunderstood my original post (which is my mistake since i didn't make it very clear). the media is on the side of bush (= pro war) and not on the side of the opposition to the war.

  • ThiChi

    The internet, the free exchange of information that exists today, makes Realist’s claim unrealistic. The fact is you can get right, left, and any leaning, or spin you want, today......

    Context, history and the use of many news outlets can lead one to the fact of the matter......

  • Jayson
    you do realize that the mass media in the US is controlled largely by bush and not the opposition right?

    Realist you give stats to the money to the Republicans. Are you saying that no money was given by these corps to Clinton (both elections) and Gore? Are you saying that the media only supports the Right wing? That is how you present your argument? Are you going to show the money donated to both sides or are you just presenting propaganda. (3rd parties are not relevent) You should show both sides or someone might accuse you of being a liar.

    (To add. I see you addressed this in your post above. However, you should or could you either include both sides or your souce?)

    no, the crux is that the US supported hussein when it was already clear that he is a gangster and that rumsfeld sold WMDs to him. and now rumsfeld goes to war over that same weapons. you don't see a shred of hypocrisy in that?

    I talked about that in a post not to long ago. You must not read all my posts accept to argue. Also, how did the US sell Iraq those Russian tanks? And the Migs? Those were of US origion? How about the French nuclear reactor that the now President of France sold Iraq. How do you pin that on Bush? I'm all ears.

    that leads to the core reason for the war. Economical interests. France and russia were afraid to loose their contracts while the US was planning to take over the contracts. this like 99% of all wars was a war primarily for economical reasons. bonus for the US was the establishment of a lasting stronghold in the region which allows them to attack every country that is not following US hegemony.

    I agree with you Realist. Accept for your last comment that is. However, the Middle East would be better off if we did take it over. The thing is we don't want it.

    in europe you don't do things on your own? what qualifies you to make that statement? what is the point of that statement?

    Maybe someone in the UK could phrase this better than I will because I am so polerized against the European way of (or lack of) self defense rights. Any use of force to protect [yourself] could be considered exessive as I understand it. And, Europe now is trying to work as a conglomerate. I.e. The E.U. who's true intent is to counter the US.

    well you should look at the US doctirne of establishing a US hegemony as long as there is no rival power (stems from rumsfeld, wolfowitz and a couple of other guys). the US is the only super power at the moment and it is acting accordingly.

    As I said,

    "I can't agree more with the people who say that the US is not the world's policeman. We have not the will to rule the world via empire, much less the ability."

    Amazing how everything was fine until Bush, rummie, and wolfie. Now all of a sudden America = nazism. Oh, the bellyaching of the left.

    History shows that this is a man who has every intention of going back to war with the world.

    ok what exactly shows that?

    History shows it Realist. As I said. I've given book sources that cover Iraqi history but you and your cohorts just mock me for it.

    as to the US gov. telling the truth:

    what exactly was the truth in colon powell's report to the UN? was it the faked evidence of hussein trying to buy nuclear material? was it the 12 year old student report? was it the irrelevant sattelite photographs? you have to be more specific!

    Do you want me to repost what I did in the last threads. They were specific. Maybe you should read them again. Maybe I need to do your homework for you.

  • Jayson

    The Nazis, again
    Mona Charen

    June 10, 2003

    The whole world is focused on what we've failed to find in Iraq -- to the point of neglecting what we have found. In doing so, the press is missing the significance of what the United States and Britain have achieved.

    The banned weapons will eventually be accounted for. Of that there can be no doubt. But the more important story is that the coalition overthrew a regime that can fairly be compared with Nazi Germany. Such a deed would be applauded by the world -- if we lived in a better world.

    The absolute numbers of those tortured, maimed and killed by the Ba'ath government will never be known. But some estimates say 1 million Iraqis were butchered by Saddam. American and British forces are finding mass graves throughout the country. Corpses of men, women and children were found. Even some of the children had been tortured before being executed. A columnist for a Lebanese newspaper wrote: "This barbarism, unprecedented in human history, was committed by Arab hands, by hands that found such delight in death and murder that the death squads would send the heads of the victims to Saddam Hussein's two sons in cardboard boxes. . . . These plastic bags in the mass graves contained bullet-riddled skulls, bodies wrapped in rags, tied in ropes, or dressed in worn pieces of clothing. . . . Ropes still tied a mother's bones to her infant's, and a father's to his son . . . "

    U.S. forces have reportedly captured millions of pages of meticulous documents from the files of the security forces, detailing tortures and murders by the regime. According to Insight magazine, "A single document dated August 1989 lists the names of 87 people who were executed and a summary of each case. The alleged crimes included trespassing into forbidden zones and teaching the Kurdish language." In one police station in Nasiriya, survivors showed U.S. Marines the electric shock prods, electric chair, and other torture implements, as well as tons of surveillance equipment. The station was filled with pictures of burned bodies.

    The Saddam regime apparently used photos of its torture victims to intimidate others, particularly the victims' families.

    Insight tells the story of Fatima Faraj, a Kurd whose nephews were arrested by the regime in 1986. After two years, they were executed. The Republican Guards demanded that their father pay a fee for their burial. When he demanded a receipt, the guards turned over the bodies. The father took the bodies of his sons home in boxes. "Their entire bodies other than (beneath) their underwear were places of burn," Fatima sobbed. "There were two black spots on their necks. They looked as though they were whipped and kicked throughout their bodies." Another nephew survived his torture. "He was kicked so bad," Fatima testified. "They took out all his fingernails and toenails. . . . He had a nervous breakdown."

    Writing in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, columnist Ahmed Al-Rab'i issued a "J'accuse" at fellow Arabs: "Is there not a single man of conscience who might be brought by these sights to . . . admit that he was mistaken, that he was unaware of the truth, that he was a victim of the misleading (Arab) media?" A Jordanian journalist declared the obvious: "The dictatorship of the Iraqi Ba'ath reached the level of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia . . . "

    Any nation that marched into that torture chamber of a country and freed it deserves the world's gratitude. Instead, we have carping from all sides. Antiquities were stolen from the museum (by the way, only 47 unaccounted for out of the originally suggested 170,000), water and power supplies took more than a couple of weeks to stabilize, and we haven't yet laid hands on the well-hidden weapons of mass destruction. The weapons will be found. The rest is nonsense. The United States and Britain have done a magnificent thing. Even if nothing else follows from it -- no liberalization of the Arab world, no breakthrough between Israelis and Palestinians, no hobbling of the terror masters -- it will have been worth it.

Share this