From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Howard Stern jumped Michael Powell on talk radio

October 26, 2004 7:13 PM

accusing him of racketeering, favoritism, and questioned how he got his job. Stern was fined by Powell's FCC for indecency and has committed his radio show to getting Bush out of office. MP3 (2MB)

More from the archive in Media.

Howard Stern jumped Michael Powell on talk radio (10.26.2004)

Next Entry: O'Sexxxy Factor -- "hysterically funny" (10.27.2004)
Previous Entry: Guardian: Outfoxed "has become a cult classic" (10.26.2004)

Read the 41 comments.

Dave E.:

Someone once told me, they thought the most significant threat to this democracy is the furhter concentration of ownership among media conglomerates. Here is just one of the rare articles publicizing concern for what should be a much, much bigger issue:

Free market economy works heads and tails above the rest in traditional business sectors, but in regard to the information commodity it's absolutely deleterious. I'd like to see anyone make a reasonable argument for having just 5 companies (Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Universal-Vivendi and AOL/Time-Warner) determine 90% of what all 294 million of us see, read and hear and form our conceptual reality from.

In this case, I'm all for government stepping in to regulate...lately, Powell's FCC has been gravitating toward relaxing ownership regulations in the name of corporate lobbying. I'm down for fair competition and diversity of choice in media, not the sheer overpowering, all-consuming behemoth of conglomerate media companies.

Over time, economists concede that free markets naturally evolve into oligarchies - the information market should be staunchly regulated to prevent this from happening. It's a clear example of market failure and will result in literally just a handfull of powerful, good ol' boy CEO's/board members from the big five determining what they feel the American population should hear, read and see. Thank God for the internet.

I think this FCC doesn't realize this and is treating the PUBLIC airwaves as just another business commodity to be brokered into oblivion. Big mistake. Kerry already sees the need for changes in this FCC policy and has stated that changes will be made when he is elected the next President.

Obviously, I'm not surprised this issue hasn't receieved more "media" attention because, well..duh. Now, why was Sinclair so worried about Kerry winning the election again??

Tue Oct 26 2004 9:58 PM


Completely concur with Dave E.

Consolidation also weakens the independence of the media with respect to the government. When there are only a few media conglomerates, it's quite easy for the government to apply pressure to one and a helping hand to another. This creates a very powerful conflict of interest in the coverage by these conglomerates. They can make much more money, if they "go with the flow".

In addition, Republicans are centralizing federal power in the presidency.

So, power over the government and over the information we receive is being concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. And these individuals are quite adept at propaganda techniques.

I don't think it's alarmist to say that we are moving in the direction of fascism. The Bush administration may not be fascist, but they have certainly done a bang-up job of moving us in that direction.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:36 AM

Steve Rhodes:

Jeff Jarvis has a transcript (though it really should be listened to)

I wish I had known he was on. I'd have nailed him for what the fear of fines has done to PBS. They bleeped the profanity in the Candidate when they played it on KQED over the weekend. They didn't bleep anything on KQED before January.

And pressed him on Sinclair and other being able to own multiple stations in one market which I think is the most dangerous part of the new ownership rules while the overall cap has gotten the most attention.

Wed Oct 27 2004 2:07 AM

Right Wing Robby:

Always blaming the Bush administration. Lets just clear something up here...

Clinton appointed Powell to that position.

Have a nice day :)

Wed Oct 27 2004 6:03 AM

Right Wing Robby:

There you go again Paul with the repulicans centralizing power deal. I asked you for examples last time and all you had was one gitmo case in which another branch of government 'checked and balanced' the case just as it should. You proof of the claim proved exactly the opposite. The system is working fine, there has been no shift.

Feel free to elighten me with an example of how this is being done or an example of how it was done.

Wed Oct 27 2004 6:41 AM


Concentration of media?

More then a decade ago Dan Rather hosted "CBS Reports: The Wall Within", a "documentary" that makes the National Inquirer appear to be the standard bearer of journalistic integrity. The "report" centered around the experiances of 6 "veterans" and their story. Turned out not one was who he said he was and not one had their back ground checked by CBS for verification (or if it was it was ignored). That "story" went on to receive "critical" acclaim in the Old Media.

A month ago Dan tried to pass the same old BS off as "reporting" with his MS Word notes supposedly from the early 70s. The public called BS on his story through new mediums that made exchange of thoughts and ideas much easier then ever dreamed of in 1988. To show how out of touch he was with reality old Dan said if the memos where fake he'd like to break the story. He seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact the story about the his fakes had broke within minutes of airing.

Matt Drudge is exhibit "A" on how a small website can shift the entire nation. Old Media was bent on ignoring the "Monica" story until her panties got shoved in their face and they had to take a sniff or get passed by completely. Like him or not almost ten years ago he proved new media was a force to be reckoned with. Rather's "Memogate" shows the power has only grown since then. Used to be if you knew Old Media was lying on a subject you wrote a letter to the editor or to a station manager. If they replied it was to the effect, "If you don't like it go out and buy your own TV station (or newspaper) and start your own news service". Now with the internet and satelite you can.

Stern himself is leaving the FCC guardianship to satellite. Organizations buying up "old media" outlets will soon find themselves holding an empty bag. Technology is bypassing traditional media oulets and their place in history will soon become questions in Trivial Pursuit.

Wed Oct 27 2004 7:17 AM

Dave E.:


You're talking about the news media, which is, while important, just one component of what one would consider to be the "media".

Take a drive around town and look at all the billboards, listen to your radio, go see a show at any music could spend a day doing all this and have just one or two companies bombarding you with advertising, programming and artists booked by the aforementioned handful of decision-makers. This is what I meant by the overall idea of media.

And it's only getting worse. Clear channel owns the friggin punchline comedy club in my town. I knew somebody that worked there both pre and post ownership and she said it was the difference between having a normal job and suddenly becoming marginal hourly labor with high turnover worked into the overhead. This is what I mean by a market oligarchy.

RWR...I only wish I had more time to address your assertion that Repubs aren't seeking to acquire more power...I don't think any self-respecting Republican would try to dispute that.

Wed Oct 27 2004 8:20 AM

Tom from Madison:

Matt Drudge is a professional liar. Remember the Kerry infidelity story? Righties don't have a problem with lies that serve the advancement of THEIR agenda. Mostly these lies are well-crafted so as to be plausible and hard to disprove. Yet substantive charges rarely result. Ken Starr succeeded in proving sex-related perjury & NOTHING ELSE despite years of effort. Despite right-wing wishes, we still live by "Innocent until proven guilty".

The tragedy in all this is how distracted the general public has become to issues of incompetence in the White House. When the war is going badly, the right wing chorus attacks the liberal media! When people start noticing that their tax cuts have been more than eaten up by high energy and health care costs, we get more Swift Boat fabrications.

It's amazing how the deaths of over 1,100 of American soldiers, thousands of dead "liberated" Iraqis, billions of wasted $, and now stolen ammo get short shrift while Republican talking points on media bias keep getting repeated ad nauseum. Clear Channel and Sinclair are causes of this problem, not solutions.

Wed Oct 27 2004 8:29 AM

Right Wing Robby:

The right wing does nothing but attack the liberal media.

Dan Rather's bias was on world display. The NYT are so far left they are out of sight and the recent unmasking of the ABC memo shows us just how fair left they are. So you think the republicans should just sit back and let them spread lie after lie?

Its an amusing charge considering you frequent a site whose masters' claim to fame it attacking a news outfit. That aside, lets just discuss this weapons charge that has most recently come out. Well, its not recent at all actually.

The story turned out to be bunk. The NYT printed it and Kerry already made a commercial about it. I bet we never see that commercial. There is zero evidence that anything was there after we came in. That stuff was long gone. It would take 28 semi trucks to move what was in there. In addition what was in there constitutes less than one tenth of one percent of what Iraq had.

Those are facts and cannot be reputed. But whats even more interesting is that Kerry says we rushed to war. How in the hell was he going to secure those weapons when he wouldnt have even gone in to Iraq in the first place? Magic?

He is making the Presidents case for him. If Kerry was in 100% of those weapons would be in the hands of the enemy. 100% because he wouldnt have "rushed to war". There is no logic in anything he says.

How would have Kerry secured those weapons when he says he wouldnt have gone to war at all? Please figure that one out and let me know.

Wed Oct 27 2004 11:04 AM

Tom from Madison:

The missing explosives were under International Atomic Energy Association [IAEA] control until the US attacked in March of 2003. At that point the US military took over responsibility for guarding weapons and they disappeared.

Prior to US invasion, the weapons were not accessible to Saddam and were being monitored by an international agency. Now we don't know where they are. This happened as a result of a very badly planned war.

This is the kind of incompetence neo-cons are defending when they are defending the Bush record. We have brought about a violent chaos in Iraq. The fact is we made it easier for known weapons to disappear. And we did this while hunting for non-existant WMDs. We also created an environment where there are both motive and opportunity to kill newly trained Iraqi police and military personnel.

The people responsible for this are Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George Bush. ABC, CNN, Dan Rather, CBS, and the NYT have nothing to do with it. Sadly, the right-wing media tends to focus on the left-wing media rather than on the war itself.

Wed Oct 27 2004 11:37 AM


wrong wing,

You said:
"Clinton appointed Powell to that position."

Clinton did *not* appoint Powell as Chairman of the FCC. Bush did.

Wed Oct 27 2004 11:41 AM

Right Wing Robby:

No answer for the Kerry question I see. Thats because there isnt one.

Your facts are wrong. Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported Monday night that his network was right there, on the spot, when the 101st Airborne got to the installation south of Iraq's capital on April 10, 2003. "But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives called HMX and RDX"

NBC reports "The [IAEA]in March, shortly before the war began, the conducted another inspection and … inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound."

The IAEA wasnt allowed to look at the weapons because Saddam was in control of them. Saddam was in charge of them, and most likely, Saddam moved them.

Bush is focused on the War. The talking heads are focused on exposing the lies of the liberal media.
Anything else you want to accuse Bush of?

Oh wait.....This just in.....ABC news had another surprise in store for us. Talk about scare tactics. ABC was going to run this tape on Monday Night! Careful before you call it all lies, its going to be on ABC news.

Monday Night... What a perfect time for the terrorists and ABC news to work together to get rid of Bush.

Wed Oct 27 2004 11:54 AM


wrong wing,

Yes, the system is still working, despite attempts by the Bush administration to undermine our freedoms.

The administration's stand has been that the president can hold U.S. citizens without trial, based only on the say-so of the president. I don't think I need to provide links for that information. I consider it to be common knowledge.

In addition, the president has broken the Geneva Convention in many ways. I consider that also to be common knowledge. As far as I know, the president is not empowered to make or break treaties. That is left up to the Congress. But, this president thinks he's a king, and that there should be no constraints on his power.

The president has the power to appoint federal judges and Supreme Court justices. It is logical to assume that Bush is appointing judges who agree with his political view that the president is above the law. Under these circumstances, the checks on the power of the predident can only survive so long, until there are enough Republican sycophants (AKA federalist zealots) in the courts to strip away our freedoms.

Our existing system of a president constrained by law is melting away before our very eyes.

If you can make any arguments that Bush appointees will not share his view of a powerful president unconstrained by law, please share them.

Our democracy is continuing to work for us merely based on inertia. The longer the nationalist federalist neocons are in power, the stronger the president becomes, and the more media and business will consolidate in ways which decrease competition and increase the sphere of influence which the government has over business and our daily lives.

This is why I can't understand how so many moderate Republicans can participate in the steady erosion of some of their core values:

constrained federal government power
restrained federal spending
competitive and free marketplace

Bush is abysmal on all of these fronts. Note that everything which is good for "business" is not necessarily good for a competitive and free marketplace.

Of course, there's more. Bush has abandoned the traditional Republican ideal that politicians should not micromanage military operations. The Bush administration has done so with disastrous effects.

This is not a Republican administration. They should change the party name to the Neocon Federalists. Far more descriptive and accurate.

Neocons believe in the transforming power of war to cleanse the world of its sins. Federalists believe in a strong, almost dictatorial presidency, a la President Putin. Stick 'em together and you may as well call them Fascists, because that's exactly where we are headed!

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:07 PM


wrong wing,

You said:
"most likely, Saddam moved them."

Due to gross negligence by the Bush administration, we will never know what happened to those weapons.


This administration is the most dangerously incompetent bunch of buffoons on acid the world has ever seen.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:11 PM


What Drudge reported:

Despite his recent endorsement of Kerry, in an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark allegedly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue," according to a Drudge story released Thursday.

In a subsequent Boston Globe report, Thomas Oliphant confirms the story saying, "Clark actually said he was still in the race because he thought Kerry's campaign was going to implode over what he inelegantly called an 'intern' scandal."

What others said:

Michael Sneed, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times stated she was told the real reason former Dem presidential nominee Al Gore did not select Kerry as his veepmate was because of allegations of women problems, or marital infidelity involving Kerry's marriage to Heinz, heiress to the HJ Heinz Ketchup fortune, whom he met in 1990.

"Kerry was the favorite to be Gore's veep, but they worried a female problem could erupt, so U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman was selected instead," said Sneed's source.

The top source also told Sneed that Al Gore was talking about Kerry's sexual baggage "with a young woman" as late as last week.

So who's the big fat liar, Drudge for reporting Wesley Clark's statement, or Clark for making the assertion? Anybody think to ask Al Gore his opinion?

Clinton appointed Powell to the FCC commission, Bush appointed him the chairmanship.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:15 PM


"It would take 28 semi trucks to move what was in there."

Except that they had over a year to move those explosives, so a single person with an SUV could have done it just as easily.

I suppose you used to defend the Three Stooges to your friends too. Give it a rest. Incompetence should be punished not hailed.

Our troops are being blown up by explosives which should have been secured by the first troops to encounter them, not over a year later, after it had all been pillaged.

This is the most bungling, can't-find-their-asses-with-both-hands administration in the history of this country.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:17 PM


WOW PAUL, does that also explain what happened the WMD?

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:18 PM

Dave E.:

I would agree that in an election year, especially the last few days, there is generally smelly media coverage from every direction and one must have their grains of salt at the ready due to the mountains of misinformation flying around like a blizzard. The missing weapons cache story has a certain odor to it, no question, but I also wouldn't condemn the NYT as being a rag either.

But perhaps some perspective is needed when considering this evil, liberal media conspiracy. Doesn't anybody remember that the job of the press is to be critical of those in positions of power? It's their raison d'etra! The 'powerful' happens to be Bush, et al right now. Imagine, if you will, when Woodward and Bernstein were working the Nixon Watergate story. This was back in the days of 'ratfucking' and the USC good ol' boys club. Shame on those who condemned them for daring to question the executive branch. Considering we have some Nixon retreads dotting the cabinet of the Bush administration, I'm all for some liberal media conspiracy.

Speaking normatively, I suggest those so quick to demonize the press realize the importance of its watchful eye on the elite and powerful. They SHOULD be critical of the Prez...I feel much more comfortable living in a country with a skeptical media than with an extension of the GOP weekly newsletter.

Now this isn't to suggest that the ethical line doesn't ever get crossed...but geez. As Tom pointed out, the right wingers blew over $60 million dollars of our money funding Starr's crusade to nail tons of outlandish stuff on the Clintons. Clinton went through it, now it's Bush's turn - so quit yer freakin whinin'.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:21 PM

Right Wing Robby:

You charges may be considered common knowledge over at, but in the real world they are not. You are making charges which cannot be back up by fact.

Provide facts to your arguments, dont just say he is making attempts. What attempts Paul? Where, when how? Your just throwing this stuff out there because your liberal herder told you it was true, and you believe him.

John Kerry is really a space alien whose goal is to drink blood from babies. Thats common knowledge so I wont back it up.

Seriously Paul. What your saying is very far left. You are accusing the President of attempting to take control over the country and thus rid this nation of its constitution. That is very serious stuff and you cant provide any example except the same old Gitmo case over and over again.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:28 PM


wrong wing,

You said:
"Bush is focused on the War."

He's spent the last four years concentrating on getting reelected, when he's supposed to be doing his job. He couldn't even secure KNOWN WEAPONS SITES.

He said we invaded Iraq to find WMD's, but he didn't bother looking in KNOWN WEAPONS SITES for them.

What happened to those KNOWN WEAPONS SITES is the same thing which happened to most of the government facilities throughout the country. They were looted.

Plain and simple.

No cockamamie crackpot story that maybe big bad Saddam moved the weapons somewhere else. Give me an effing break. Saddam was not the cunning military genius you neocons are painting him to be. In fact, he actually bested the bozo Bush administration in micro- and mis-managing the military.

If we had secured those weapons sites, like we were SUPPOSED to do, those high explosives would still be packed tightly in their crates, instead of being used to blow body parts off of our soldiers.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:29 PM


The Ken Star investigation yeilded 55 criminal charges and 32 criminal convictions, all of which could have been avoided if Bill Clinton would have just come clean. Blame him for the 60 million.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:32 PM


wrong wing,

Stop spreading your talking points.

THE BUNKERS WERE NOT SEARCHED. The military commander on the scene was given no orders to search for the weapons, so he did not do so. End of story. Incompetence to the Nth degree.

Here's the documentation. You can send your apologies to the troops in Iraq who are dying at the hands of these 380 tons of explosives.

The unit's commander said Tuesday that his troops had not searched the 9-square-mile facility and had merely stopped there for the night on their way to Baghdad.

The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site, known as Al-Qaqaa, was seen as highly sensitive or that international inspectors had visited just before the war began in 2003 to check weapons they had tagged since 1991.

"We happened to stumble on it," he said, speaking by phone from Fort Campbell, Ky., where he is chief of staff for the division. "I didn'tknow what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. ... The plan was not to go in there and start searching."

His recollection seemed to match that of Lai Ling Jew, an NBC news staff member embedded during the war with the 101st Airborne, who described their time at Al-Qaqaa as "more of a pit stop."

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:38 PM


wrong wing,

You said:
"The IAEA wasnt allowed to look at the weapons because Saddam was in control of them. Saddam was in charge of them, and most likely, Saddam moved them."

When the UN went in they verified that the weapons were still under UN seal. When our troops finally got around to inspecting the site, they did not find anything under UN seal.

After the invasion of Iraq, the IAEA requested to inspect the site and was DENIED by the Bush administration. So, not only did we not secure the site, but we prevented the IAEA from inspecting it.

Wed Oct 27 2004 12:49 PM



"The President seems to think Senator Kerry could not possibly be criticizing him since the President thinks he has never made a mistake. Let’s be perfectly clear: it is the President who dropped the ball. Senator Kerry is being critical of George Bush, not the troops. By embarking on the line of attack, George Bush is deflecting blame from him over to the military. This is beneath contempt."

Wed Oct 27 2004 1:00 PM


Here is an editorial about the CIA disappearing prisoners:

Wed Oct 27 2004 1:02 PM


Checking a "seal" is not the same as verifying presence.

The nuclear agency pulled out of Iraq in 1998, and by the time it returned in 2002, it confirmed that 35 tons of HMX that had been placed under IAEA seal were missing. HMX and RDX are the key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents have widely used in a series of bloody car bombings in Iraq.

ElBaradei told the United Nations in February 2003 that Iraq had declared that “HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying.”

“However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that the IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material,” ElBaradei warned at the time.

Wed Oct 27 2004 1:38 PM

Red Ghost:


Stop being a bunch of haters. Seriously.

380 tons of missing explosives is BAD no matter how you cut it.

But, would somebody remind me how all this relates to Powell, Stern and media consolidation?

Wed Oct 27 2004 2:41 PM



You said:
"Checking a "seal" is not the same as verifying presence."

I think the whole point of the seal is to verify that the items stored were not tampered with.

Wed Oct 27 2004 3:04 PM


It was Clinton!

Wed Oct 27 2004 3:04 PM


wrong wing,

You said:
"Provide facts to your arguments"

Which common knowledge facts are you disputing?

Wed Oct 27 2004 3:08 PM


Paul, a seal on a door just means the door wasn't opened. If you are dealing with a large ware house, all you do is open it up in another way. Unscrew some siding, use the loading dock door. What kind of "seal" was used? The claim that looters took 380 tons of explosives seems pretty far fetched. Imagine the airsupport reports that 28 semis are burning up the highway.

Three-week window
U.S. defense officials said Tuesday that the materials could have vanished during a period of about three weeks, between March 15, 2003, when inspectors for the IAEA confirmed that at least some of the materials were still stored under IAEA seal at Al-Qaqaa, and April 4, when U.S. troops arrived.

So your claim that a looter with an SUV could accomplish this is hardly pausible. Either the material was dissappearing long before the war started (under government orders, should we have invaded sooner?) or it was done in a three week window (a process requiring more logistics then a few looters with SUVs could muster).

Wed Oct 27 2004 3:31 PM

Tom from Madison:

Well, if there are enough plausible theories as to why the missing explosives might have already been gone, maybe everybody will just forget about holding this president or anyone else in his administration accountable for them being missing.

What if all this excuse-making energy had gone into planning the war?

Why won't this president ever admit to his mistakes? Why don't Bush apologists expect more character from a man of such self-proclaimed piety?

Wed Oct 27 2004 3:50 PM


"A top Iraqi science official said it was impossible that 350 tonnes of high explosives could have been smuggled out of a military site south of Baghdad before the regime fell last year."

Wed Oct 27 2004 3:57 PM



You said:
"U.S. defense officials said Tuesday that the materials could have vanished during a period of about three weeks, between March 15, 2003, when inspectors for the IAEA confirmed that at least some of the materials were still stored under IAEA seal at Al-Qaqaa, and April 4, when U.S. troops arrived."

This is total BS. The commander of those troops insists that they did not inspect the weapons.

The New York Times report indicated that the site was still not secured as of very recently.

Wed Oct 27 2004 4:57 PM


The "New York Times" said it, LOL. Who wrote the peice, Jason Blair?

Thu Oct 28 2004 6:05 AM


"...confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003."

Even the UN agrees, Kerry and the New York Times are lying.

"The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.

A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.

The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.

"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said."

ABC, NBC, and the Washington Post all say the New York Times and John Kerry is lying.

Thu Oct 28 2004 6:20 AM

Right Wing Robby:

What a difference a day makes.

Anymore bombs you lefties wanna drop? Like all the ones before this, it missed.

Who would believe the NYT and Dan Rather anyway? They are completely bias and have been proven to use faulty info to back up their attacks on the President. I guess when at first you dont succeed, try, try again.

Thu Oct 28 2004 8:15 AM


"The Washington Times" said it. LOL. Who wrote it, Satan?

Thu Oct 28 2004 9:27 AM


Was Satan ever considered one of the brightest rising stars for the Washington Post like poor manipulated Jason was for the NY Times?

As for CBS, Dan Rather is still hoping to break the story about his "falsified" memos, also on his desk are the breaking stories that Kennedy has been assassinated and Pearl Harbor has been attacked.

Thu Oct 28 2004 9:57 AM

Independent Jones:

You guys are so funny. The whole exercise is futile. No one who is going to take the time to post in here can honestly say they have an open mind to others points of view with a willingness to concede to the other side. It just ain't gonna happen. It's like a staunch catholic and staunch buddhist arguing over whose god is the real god. Both think they are right and will never admit that the other guy might have a point. All of this back and forth is pretty meaningless. If one side doesn't offer up some "supporting material" then the argument is worthless. Then if quotes and sources are given, then they are dismissed as partisan and biased.

If you want to change someone's mind, it's not going to happen here.

Thu Oct 28 2004 11:17 AM


Paul, got any more theories about where those explosives went?

Pentagon says they took about 250 tons, and the UN says they lost 138 tons before the war ever started. Kerry's pulled all reference to them from his website and dropped the issue from his speeches. Old Media is tripping over themselves trying to help him and all they do is dig a bigger hole for him to fall into.

Fri Oct 29 2004 2:48 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart