Bias: How the Media Distort the News

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by FordHQ

Glenn X tends not to understand people properly. Never did I imply that all heterosexuals were homophobic, the point was people like Falwell try to teach kids to be afraid of gays, and act like they don't exist. Stop trying to read crap into my statements that isn't there.

While you may not realize this fact yet, young Ford, words do have meaning. Yes, even words as confusingly constructed as yours in your previously mentioned post. However, if you were to actually go back and read what I wrote in my previous post regarding your perplexing language, you’d notice that I asked you if you were “saying that being heterosexual naturally equates to being homophobic?” I didn’t claim that that necessarily was your message, Ford. Well, happily, you rejoined the discussion and cleared things up, indicating that, in fact, such (to use your colorful term) “crap” was not what you intended.

Originally posted by gbear

Huh? 33% view themselves as conservatives vs. 20 liberal. Shall we compare that back to the 60's threw the 80s (less as time went on)? Liberals used to far outnumber conservatives.

Really? When was this? Show me the data that backs up your claim, gbear. If liberals once far outnumbered conservatives, as you seem to presume they did in the 1960s and 1970s, then please explain to me how Richard Nixon, who was clearly no paragon of liberalism, was twice elected president during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, with Nixon carrying a whopping 49 states to ultra-liberal George McGovern’s one in the ‘72 election.

Originally posted by gbear

Now there are 3 conservatives for every 2 liberals

Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Of course, there is still, according to that NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just 33% of the public out there which sees themselves as conservative versus 20% which sees itself as liberal. If you wanna get all worked up over a difference of 13% percent and say that that’s surefire evidence of a “backlash” against liberalism -- never mind the fact that neither of the above identified groups in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll constitutes a statistical majority -- knock yourself out, man.

And since were on the subject of polling data, take a gander at the following excerpt from Bias, gbear:

A poll last year by Brill’s Content showed that 74 percent of [registered] Republicans spotted a liberal bias. No bulletin there. But 47 percent of [registered] Democrats agreed, believing that “most journalists are more liberal than they are.”

Look, if you wanna speculate about what this bit of data, too, “really means,” using that loopy theory of yours about how the news media’s constant jaundiced highlighting of conservatives and conservative views has actually fomented some great, contrarian, pro-conservative movement amongst the general public, well, again, gbear, knock yourself out. (Which, if you did, gbear, would be decidedly odd on your part, since you so clearly seem to recognize the obvious benefits to be enjoyed by a particular group and/or viewpoint that the media decides to look upon favorably and promote vigorously. “I know you don't believe in mainstreaming [homosexuality] by repeated exposure,” you said to Art, “but I certainly think that TV shows [e.g. Will & Grace and Queer as Folk] and other public shows of gay lifestyles have served to reduce intollerance of gay lifestyles.”)

However, as I said before, liberal bias in the news media is about more than simply applying an ideological label only to conservative voices. It goes deeper than that. As Goldberg observes:

The problem comes in the big social and cultural issues, where we [the news media] often sound more like flacks for liberal causes than objective journalists.

Why were we doing the work of the homeless lobby by exaggerating the number of homeless people on the streets of America? And why were we portraying them as regular folks just like you and me when we all knew they were overwhelmingly alcoholics and drug addicts and schizophrenics?

Why were we doing PR for the AIDS lobby by spreading an epidemic of fear, telling our viewers about how AIDS was about to break out into mainstream heterosexual America, which simply was not true?

Why did we give so much time on the evening news to liberal feminist organizations, like NOW, and almost no time to conservative women who oppose abortion?

Why, indeed? Do you understand what Goldberg is saying here, gbear? He’s saying that the news media, while claiming to be honest and forthright, have been lying to us for years. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you, gbear. But it sure as hell matters to me. Maybe you don’t care when people lie to you. But I sure as hell care when people -- especially those who claim to be the most fair and objective among us -- lie to me.

I don’t care how many conservatives or liberals there are in the general population. I don’t even care how many conservatives or liberals there are in the country’s newsrooms. I only care that the people in those newsrooms level with me when they report the day’s events. And, unfortunately, they haven’t been leveling with me. Or you. Or anyone else.

[gbear]

GlennX,

You seem to view it as a mere 13% points. Oy. I'm sorry how much did Bush win by? Let's also take a look for a minute at who votes in this country. If you had to parse out who votes among the liberal to conservative spectrum, would you agree that the majority of voters probably fall towards the extremes? Afterall, it's usually the extremist who gets off their duff to go vote, and that goes double in non presidential campaigns. But ofcourse, you don't think a 3-2 split is significant? Oy. A 60-40% split in an election isn't even considered close. BUt, no, your 33 to 20 split shows no evidence of a backlash. Good grief! You put the numbers there.

I'll admit my info on historical trends is primarily anecdotal, but think back to the number of people on this board who have said "my parents were liberal." My experience in talking with people from the baby boom/hippy generation is that they are by far more liberal than people of my own generation. I'll look for stats to back it, and get back to you. Just curious, are you claiming the 3-2 split is a no change? If so, how did liberal democrats control the senate and house for so long?

Art,

"You simply have to sucumb to what arouses you." Is it then your position that we get to chose what arouses us? Like I said, I'd have a hard time getting aroused by the idea of making it with a guy, even if the church said it was the only right thing. My point is that what arouses you may not be a choice. You can chose from what arouses you, but isn't that like chosing from a predefined list of possibles?

God and Jesus say it. We know this because the church says so. Hmmm, what did Muhammed say? If we listen to the Taliban... Oy by the way, their opinions are pretty clear too. I'm sorry, everything a church says should be thought about. It's not inherently more true because they say God says it. People have claimed to speak for God and Jesus for a long time. Heck, the KKK preached intollerance in God's name too. :doh:

[Glenn X]

To be perfectly candid, gbear -- and please don't take this the wrong way -- I don't give a f*ck about the 33% vs. 20% ideological split amongst the general public. I don't care about the Gore/Bush 2000 presidential election results. I started this thread to discuss the news media's liberal bias and their left-leaning reportage, plain and simple.

[gbear]

How foolish of me to then look at the effects this leftist bent in the media has had.

[Art]

Gbear,

I would argue that there have always been more conservatives than liberals due largely to the fact that as this country was more religious at previous points, conservative beliefs are generally found within believers and that was not likely to be different at any point. I don't know this, but I suspect it. Further, as an interesting point, JFK is generally considered conservative if you apply today's meaning to it, though he was a democrat. Today, he'd probably be a Republican, in terms of much of what he stood for.

No matter, the fact is that the news media is clearly slanted in general reporting. If there is a trend, as you suggest, toward conservatism, it would have much more to do with the general state of decay our nation has found itself experiencing over the decades. Democrats were largely in charge of Congress for 50 years. In the mid-1990s, there was a back lash and conservatism seemed to step forth in people's voting preferences.

I believe you fully understand the difference in reporting that is being described. I believe you completely understand that identifying one side while not identifying the other is to corner one point while leaving open the other as "normal".

As for our conversation on the uplifting of a gay lifestyle, I too think you understand what a primal sexual urge is. I think you've seen something like my Shih Tzu humping my cat, and I think you'd likely agree that my Shih Tzu can not help who my Shih Tzu is attracted to, or what my Shih Tzu enjoys during sex. Man can.

Primal urges are just that. Pecularities in sexual desires are just that. That doesn't make it anything other than fetish. I would suggest that at some point in the lives of every human, there's been an attraction or sexual thought for a same-sex person. Perhaps when we were younger and we don't recall it. Perhaps not. The fact is, you have chosen at some point in your life, whether you know it or not, to not desire same-sex partners in your sexual tastes.

Sexual normalcy in society is largely social engineering. As stated, there was a time when man-boy love was normal and women were to procreate with, and nothing more. Base primalcy in sexual interaction is inborn to all animals, of which we, as men, are. The fact is, you would be all over me in the bubble scenario I offered because you are compelled to need sexual release, and without the teachings of our society to shape your limits and preferences, you would revert to basic primalcy, which is what animals do.

This is why some people are gay. This is why some like bondage. This is why some enjoy beastiality. Some like to be shat on. Some like to be pissed on. These traits are not born to a person as genetic keys they just happened to get. They are peculiar, abnormal desires they have been let rule their actions. But, the only perversion we openly teach our children is that of homosexuality. There are dangers to so doing.

[gbear]

Art, you may be right that there may have been more concervatives, even during the time of Goldwater vs. LBJ, even if the Democrats controled the house and senate for the better part of 50 years, even in the age of the hippy anit war legalise pot era. I'm less sure of that. I'm fairly certain it wasn't a 60% majority which is huge. Even you noted that constitutes a backlash in the late 90's through today.

My point was that I think the press normalizing conservative view points has made that even more true.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are other contributing factors as well. I rarely think there is but one factor for huge shifts in the way we think. IN fact, if I had to pick the single biggest factor, it would probably be the percentage of Americans owning stock. As it goes up, people interests begin to align with large companies who typically benefit from conservative rule.

Back to the Gay question. I guess where I disagree with you is that you seem to believe being gay is just taught. Why have people been gay for eons even in times where it was punished extremely harshly? You equate it to beastality. I'm not sure that's fair either. You'll note that under Hitler when gays were sent to concentration camp, they were still gay. Where were the beastality practicers? I'm not sure you can say it is taught because all atempts to teach otherwise have failed. Being gay certainly isn't societaly reinforced, even in this country. It's far easier to be straight.

Also, you point to a primal sexual urge that you claim is always for straight sex. Why do you say that? What evidence is there? I understand why you say it because if that's not what you believe, than heterosexuality is just a fetish too. I'm just not sure that I believe the primal sexual urge is always straight.

[Darth Tater]

As far as the idea of having more liberals than conservatives in the 1960s, looking back at the social/political clime of the late 50's early 60's, I would probably have been defined as a liberal then. Now, I am considered a conservative in most corners.

However, I divide the politcal landscape into four basic catagories:

Authoritarian-Liberal (classical sense)/Public-Private. On this, I find myself leaning to the liberal/private quadrant.

[Art]

Gbear,

I think you've missed the point some.

I don't categorize primal instinct as straight or gay. Sex is neither. The desire to have sex is neither straight nor gay. Orientation is socially engineered in society, now and ever before. People have engaged in homosexual behavior for thousands of years, as they have in hetrosexual behavior. As societies have risen and fallen, various norms have been placed on that behavior over time.

In general, there is no question that it is born into mammals the desire to procreate. Some don't, but the instinct is there. One can not procreate with a same-sex partner. I've never said one's primal desire for sex is straight. I said it is neither straight nor gay. I've pointed that if you and I were raised together in a sheltered bubble away from the teachings of society, we'd be humping each other because our desire for sexual release is inate, and it is neither a straight or gay thing.

As I've said repeatedly. There is no straight gene. There is no gay gene. There's no rapist gene. There's no pedophile gene. There's no S&M gene. There's no beastiality gene. There's just primal sexual urges that some are able to process, filter out and address and others are not.

[gbear]

okay, but then how is heterosexuality different from any other fetish outside of currently be the accepted "norm"?

[fansince62]

I've pointed that if you and I were raised together in a sheltered bubble away from the teachings of society, we'd be humping each other because our desire for sexual release is inate, and it is neither a straight or gay thing.

art....your last post has created images in my mind that have frankly ruined my day!!!!! i politely request that you and GBear leave fantasy island immediately

[Darth Tater]

62,

I was eating lunch then a message came in, I had to click.:puke:

[gbear]

Fair enough, consider the subject dropped on my end. Maybe someday I will have a nonfantasy island chance to discuss.

[Art]

Yeah, the thought of two guys together is not nearly so appealing as, oh, say, Cindy Crawford and Jennifer Gardner, is it? .

[DIESEL TROLL]

GEEZ.....only 4 aspirins before I got through readin' this thread.....I think I'm doin' better now.......:twitch: :twitch: :twitch:

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by gbear

My point was that I think the press normalizing conservative view points has made that even more true.

:laugh: With all due respect, gbear, you have an odd notion of what constitutes normalizing. Based upon what you've said here, I guess that something like Basic Instinct could be seen as normalizing lesbianism, eh?

Originally posted by gbear

How foolish of me to then look at the effects this leftist bent in the media has had.

You? Foolish?

Hey, you said it, gbear, I didn't.

But seriously, sir, as I said before, I'm interested in discussing liberal media bias, while you seem to be more interested in having a sociological debate on America's at-large ideological leanings.

Firstly, I'm not really interested in such a debate, for if I were I'd have surely entitled this thread "Bias: How American Society Views the World Politically," or something along those lines. Secondly, while you have your views as to what effect liberal media bias has on American society at-large, I have mine. And based upon our discussion thus far, it appears that those two views are not in agreement with one another. And that's fine, too. Variety is, as they say, the spice of life.

Lastly, this thread has somehow taken a drastic left turn into the heated debate of Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture. And that's fine, too, I suppose. Whatever floats y'all's boat, gentlemen.

And on this last point, let me throw the following out there into the discussion: After years and years of up-close-and-personal research, anthropologists studying extant hunter-gatherer collectives, like the !Kung of Africa, have noted an interesting observation. In all their time with these hunter-gatherer groups, scientists have noticed a complete absence of homosexuals within these groups, which, on the face of it, would seem to debunk theories of homosexuality being a genetically conferred trait.

Moreover, Art's bubble theory would appear to be proven true by what we know of penitentiaries, where men who swear to be heterosexual have found themselves engaging in homosexual acts and homosexual relationships. Similar findings have been reported at women's correctional facilities.

[fansince62]

by way of concrete example....i live in virginia beach, the editorial page of the local paper, The Pilot, is decidedly left-leaning when one considers the balance and quality of content by its regular columnists. the only consent the staff apparently makes to the other side of the fence is on military issues, primarily Navy, for obvious reasons. but the content slant doesn't actually bother me. what rankles is the poverty of thinking and grossness of the writing and thinking that the paper presents for reasoned thought. my favorite stinker is molly ivins....here is the typical structure of one of her diatribes:

- ad hominem attack against targeted conservative/political leader

- sarcastic humor meant to suggest superior moral status

- 2 to 3 sentence reference to statistics presented in a book no one has read, without analysis of statistical procedures used or countervailing studies, used as a departure point for ensuiing discussion

- another ad hominen attack to demonstrate appropriate indignity

- another sarcasm to fill space

- more follow-up and "logical reasoning" based on now axiomatic conclusions of the aforementioned unexamined reference no one has read

- final denouement that can follow one of two paths:

1) sarcastic conclusion that includes final "witty" ad hominen attack on proponent of detested view

2) hopeful comment that points the reader to the preferred, logical, moral high road based on now axiomatic principles of unexamined refernece no one has read

problem is....after being insulted and assaulted time and again by this sort of journalistic **it, i find myself unwilling to accept anything these people have to say and reflexively, almost instinctively now, refuse to team with these folks even when they may be right. these people are dangerous to the long-run health of this nation. sound decision-making requires unbiased argument, careful reasoning and integrity. these folks lack in all categories. the quality of argument in the editorial pages of America has declined markedly over the past 20 years or so. the carville model for influencing the public mind has taken hold: poll, fabricate and slander. that's how arguments are won these days.

note: her use of statistics reminds me of the old adage...."she uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination."

[DaFunky1]

Originally posted by 56Arrington56

It was a known among gay groups in Britian that tinky-winky was thought to be gay way before Falwell made those statements. The teletubbies started in the UK a couple of year before the US.

I remembered something on this as well... here is a link from his site about this....

Tele Tubbies

Also I think the portrayal of him as a homophobe or anti-gay is misplaced as well. He held a "summit" of gay rights leaders and conservatives at his church to deal with violence towards gays. He definitely has a strong stance against the lifestyle, but I can't see where he hates or wishes harm to any of them (just for clarification on the harm... it wasn't implied).

Summit

Personally I am not a fan of his, but I hate seeing people regardless if they are religious leaders or atheists lied about. Talk about media bias... other than O'Reilly, where are the shouts about Jesse Jackson and his illegitimate child? How come other liberal "religious" leaders are not lambasted in the same way? How come a former clansman, Sen. Byrd WV (d), doesn't have his past brought up and when he uses the "N" word on national TV, in an interview, he isn't run out of town on a rail?

Lets assume for a minute that Al Gore had mispelled potato? Do you honestly think it would have made the news like it did for Dan Quayle? Can you honestly say that if the same things that Clinton did, and was accused of, if Bush had done them that no other news would be on television most of the time? And this last thing with Gore using the war on terror for his own political gain, when he and Bill did nothing to get Bin Laden though they knew he was behind the first world trade center attack, as well as others.

I personally am all for religious leaders, and public officials being held to a higher standard, but the bias against the conservative leaders is sickening. Sorry for the rant.

Peace

[DaFunky1]

Originally posted by Art

Ford,

In my view it is perfectly fine for someone to be gay and live with any one he wishes.... It shouldn't be shouted down as Falwell attempts to do. Likewise, it shouldn't be shouted up like Hollywood and schools attempt to do.

So how do propose that Mr. Falwell get his views across? Or should he just keep quiet? I have seen him on Fox news talking about it. I don't know if he shouts in his sermons or not, can't say I have ever listened to him. I will say this though, he has a right to, and is definitely going to say it... He doesn't seem like the type to not say what he believes to be his truth, or biblical truth. He has said some things that definitely have ruffled feathers, but unlike a Jim Bakker, I can't see what he has said (or done) other than things that go against the liberal establishment, that has made him so demonized.

Maybe, Art, you can direct me to a few things, other than his post 9-11 comments, that would help me understand why he is so disliked. I think I stated in my previous post, I by no means am a fan, or a follower, of his, but I do respect the man for standing up for what he believes in. My guess is if Billy Graham were as political as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell he would be demonized as well.

Peace

[Glenn X]

fansince62, after reading your post about columnist Molly Ivins of the Pilot, I am reminded of something that Steven Brill, founder and editor-in-chief of Brill’s Content, once said: “When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability, journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers look good.”

Originally posted by DaFunky1

...Gore using the war on terror for his own political gain, when he and Bill did nothing to get Bin Laden though they knew he was behind the first world trade center attack, as well as others.

As I’ve said before, I consider myself to be a liberal and, looking back, would’ve surely voted for Bill Clinton in ’92 and ’96, had I been old enough at the time to do so. However, when Clinton went to Georgetown University a scant three months after the terror attacks on this country to deliver an interminably long speech about the significance of Sept. 11th and used this public speaking opportunity to essentially, albeit subtly and slyly, pass the buck and cover his own @ss (per his time-honored modus operandi) with regard to any even indirect culpability in the events of 9/11, after having ignored during both of his terms in office the gravity of the Islamist terror threat to the United States, I swore off the man once and for all. “Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless,” Clinton argued in his speech. “Indeed, in the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound... I can tell you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.”

As James Lileks, a columnist for Newhouse News Service, astutely rebuts, “Who’s this we, Lone Ranger [Clinton]? The 82nd Airborne never landed at Jerusalem. Jews didn’t hijack planes and smack them into buildings to avenge the sins of the Crusaders. More to the point, a couple hundred Americans were blown up in Lebanon in the early ’80s, and until 9/11 we didn’t talk about it.”

Besides, Bill, it’s not your fault that you never took Bin Laden and Al Qaeda seriously, that you ignored the myriad needs of our military and intelligence services, viewing them as overrated impediments to your domestic agenda, right? 9/11 would’ve occurred, anyway, because of the Crusades, right? There were no proactive measures that could’ve been taken by you to avert its happening, right? Gotcha, Bill.

[OrangeSkin]

I just finished reading "Bias", and Goldberg's case doesn't have many holes. Just compare these two articles about the recent air-raid in Afghanistan which supposedly killed dozens of civilians. One is from the New York Times and the other is from the Washington Times.

from the WT:Anti-air fire came from amid civilians

By Rowan Scarborough

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

An anti-aircraft weapon fired at U.S. aircraft this week in Uruzgan province was stationed in a civilian area, which could explain why an AC-130 gunship that attacked those targets this week is thought to have killed or wounded scores of Afghans by mistake. Top Stories

A spokesman for the joint U.S.-Afghan team investigating the incident said an anti-aircraft gun fired at U.S. aircraft from inside a walled compound in the village of Kakarak, Afghanistan.

It was in the village that locals say a wedding party was under way, complete with celebratory gunfire that may have prompted the AC-130 attack.

"For 48 hours our guys were watching them fire," Maj. Gary Tallman told the Associated Press in Kakarak. He said the anti-aircraft gunners were coordinating with other batteries in the region. "These guns were talking with each other," he said.

The Afghan government says 44 civilians were killed around the time an Air Force AC-130 gunship directed cannon fire at six anti-aircraft artillery positions. Guns mixed among hamlets loyal to the ousted Taliban regime in the mountainous area north of Kandahar could explain why AC-130 rounds hit civilians.

"It is not unusual for the al Qaeda or the Taliban to place weapons and ammunition and fighters in areas where civilians are living, around schools, areas like that," Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told reporters at the Pentagon. "That is not unusual."

U.S. military investigators issued what Mrs. Clarke later called a "very preliminary report" based on a two-hour visit to Deh Rawud, accompanied by two Afghan government ministers, several tribal elders and an embassy staffer.

"They saw some evidence of damage, but there was no determination of what caused the damage," Mrs. Clarke said. "They did see some blood they did not see any bodies or any graves."

The bride and groom were thought to have died in the raid, but the groom showed up yesterday to meet the U.S. investigators, according to U.S.armed forces magazine Stars and Stripes.

The groom, identified as Malick, told a reporter that he and his fiancee were due to be married the following day, and they had been in a different village when the planes struck.

He said he came back to find 25 family members dead, including his father and several brothers and sisters.

"I saw bodies flying like straws," said Haleema, an old woman brought to a hospital in Kandahar. "I had to jump over six bodies to escape."

According to the Stars and Stripes report, the U.S. investigators seemed skeptical, making remarks like "There should be more blood" and "Where are the bodies?"

Villagers said they had buried the bodies immediately, in accord with Muslim tradition.

Three days after the air operation, the Pentagon still could not say yesterday whether it was the AC-130's sweeping gun volleys that killed and wounded civilians. The Pentagon says it cannot confirm casualty figures.

Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, said 21 civilians were being treated for wounds at hospitals in Kandahar and at the U.S. air base at Baghram, north of Kabul.

The Pentagon slowly has released details about operations at the time the AC-130 attacked the sites.

On Tuesday, spokesmen said a force of about 400 Afghans, and U.S. and coalition special operations troops, were patrolling the area when the air strikes occurred.

Gen. Newbold said yesterday that the teams had been operating for several weeks and had engaged in a series of firefights. He said the units had inflicted casualties on the enemy and taken some as prisoners. There were no clashes the night of the AC-130 strikes, but ground controllers were operating and had pointed out the location of some anti-aircraft sites.

"This is an area of enormous sympathy for the Taliban and al Qaeda," Gen. Newbold said. "Our personnel observed them firing before these [AC-130s] engaged."

Local Afghans say the gunship fired at wedding celebrants in Kakarak who followed the Pashtun custom of firing guns in the air. Some Afghans routinely carry and fire substantial weapons, including anti-aircraft artillery and rocket launchers.

But Gen. Newbold cast doubt on the celebratory fire theory. "There is a difference between firing that goes in celebration and clearly directed fire of a different caliber, different mix of munitions," he said. "And that's apparent to our crews."

He said that every time U.S. aircraft flew over the area recently, it encountered anti-aircraft fire.

A B-52 bomber also participated in the attack, dropping seven bombs on caves where the enemy had set up military encampments. One of the satellite-guided bombs flew astray but fell harmlessly on a hillside, the Pentagon said.

The operation in Uruzgan province is part of a larger search-and-destroy mission being carried out in other regions of Afghanistan, particularly in the eastern part of the country, as well as in Pakistan. Uruzgan is a hotbed of Taliban support and may harbor ousted Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. He and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden have so far eluded an intensive U.S. manhunt.

Mulllah Omar was born near the province's village of Deh Rawud, where on Monday U.S. troops found a huge cache of Taliban weapons and ammunition, including anti-aircraft weapons.

"We've always said that as things went along in Afghanistan, it likely would become harder," Mrs. Clarke said. "It would become harder because you're going against the remaining pockets. It's very hard to find them."

Gen. Newbold added: "While we've defeated the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we haven't destroyed them."

Tuesday night, the White House issued a statement of condolence. "On behalf of the America people, the president extends his deep condolences for the loss of innocent life no matter what the cause is determined to be," it said. "In the meantime, we are consulting with Afghan authorities on the humanitarian needs of the people in that area."

[OrangeSkin]

From the NY Times:Villagers Recount Terror of U.S. Air Raid

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

(True, this is from the AP, but it says something that the NYT even bothered to pick this one-sided article up off of the wire).

AKRAK, Afghanistan, July 3 (AP) — Forty pairs of shoes sat at the front door of Muhammad Sherif's house. Villagers said their owners, family members attending a wedding party, were killed Monday in an American air raid.

A small boy stood weeping in front of a pile of women's clothing. Next door, several Afghans pointed to flesh and bloodstains mixed in with straw.

"My heart is burning with anger," said Abdul Malik, Mr. Sherif's son, who said he still planned to go ahead with his wedding, which was to take place this week. "The Americans should be put on trial."

American investigators at the scene appeared skeptical that the evidence supported the villagers' casualty reports, but Pentagon officials acknowledged that the local custom of burying the dead relatively quickly could make the death toll difficult to determine.

The villagers said a plane suddenly blasted away at them as they were celebrating. Survivors said some people died on the spot, others fled.

They told of running for their lives through rice and corn fields as the American aircraft seemed to chase them, firing bullets around them. Terrified children took shelter in groves of trees, survivors said.

The villagers said 25 of the dead, all members of a single extended family, were attending the party at Mr. Sherif's home. By tradition, neither Abdul Malik nor his fiancée was present and both escaped injury. Mr. Sherif was killed.

Although Afghans often fire weapons at such festivities, survivors insisted there had been no shooting for several hours before the raid. They said they could hear the sound of aircraft overhead but paid no attention because such flights are common.

"The first rocket hit the women's section," said Ahmed Jan Agha, who was at the party. "The second rocket hit the men's section. Then everybody started running. The airplanes were shooting rockets at the people running away. They were chasing us."

AC-130 gunships are not equipped with rockets, but to those coming under fire from its cannons, the rounds might appear to be rockets.

There was no evidence on the ground to indicate what type of weapons were fired.

Mr. Agha said he could not see the planes because it was dark, and he had no idea how many took part in the attack. He said survivors hid in the nearby orchards and fields while the attack continued for about four hours.

When the planes were gone, Mr. Agha said, American and Afghan troops entered the village.

"They told everybody to stay inside their homes," Mr. Agha said of the Americans. "They only allowed the injured to leave." The Americans departed about noon, he said. That is when the Afghans started burying their dead.

At the nearby village of Shartogai, Mohiuddin, 20, said he was sleeping outdoors when he was awakened by thunderous explosions. He saw aircraft lights and began running to a grove of trees where he found several children hiding.

He said the planes fired on the grove. One tree was cut in half and others showed what appeared to be damage from ordnance.

"Bullets hit all around me," he said. "I was lucky to be alive."

Abdul Ghaffari, 30, showed journalists dozens of what appeared to be blast craters, some three feet across. He said a few people in his village were injured but no one died.

"Americans can see even small things," he said. "Why couldn't they see it wasn't Al Qaeda? It was just women and children running."

At Mr. Sherif's compound, there were two gaping holes in the roof of the house. The mud walls facing the inside of the compound were pockmarked by shrapnel, and shards of metal were scattered through the yard. Dried blood and human remains littered the area.

"They say they were looking for Al Qaeda," Mr. Malik said. "But did they find any dead bodies of Al Qaeda people here? We are all the right-hand men of Hamid Karzai and we support his government."