Art Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 So, today, England supports Blair by a count of 434 to 124 to support a resolution on Iraq. A group of people then tried to add an amendment to that supported resolution asking that words be used to say war is just a last resort. That was defeated 393 to 199. How does this get played on CNN right now? Blair suffers huge revolt on Iraq 199 lawmakers vote against Blair policy So, 393 vote FOR Blair and the story is that 199 voted against him. Astounding the lengths the liberal media will go to portray every victory as a defeat. This is like the media leading with the story that Estrada has 46 senators against his confirmation while ignoring the 54 that support him. Way to go CNN. Way to enforce liberal bias . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Art.....CNN ratings have been steadily dropping..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 CNN is still around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 I don't care for the media, peroid. I choose not to watch the news, whether it's cnn, fox or whatever.... It just goes to show that those in charge of those respective stations try to manipulate views/opinion toward their own, CNN to the Left and Fox to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Any idea how many of Blair's party-members voted against it? It was by-far the most ever to dissent from the party-line while he was PM. This is a bit significant concerning his support within his own party. It is not too common for a party-line to be crossed when the issue is as important as this one, especially by so many. I know a lot of support was from the Conservative Party in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 As long as the definition of "last resort" was not spelled out why would anyone vote against that part of the resolution? That's the story I bet CNN and FOX miss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 The folks over at Fox must be giddy. It's no wonder their ratings kick CNN's a$$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by JackC As long as the definition of "last resort" was not spelled out why would anyone vote against that part of the resolution? That's the story I bet CNN and FOX miss! In other words, why not vote for something that's hopelessly ambiguous? I'll answer your question: because you're vote is hopefully not mean to allow your political opponents to have weasel room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by redman In other words, why not vote for something that's hopelessly ambiguous? I'll answer your question: because you're vote is hopefully not mean to allow your political opponents to have weasel room. Yes. Why vote against something that is ambiguous but yet a good thing to say? I would vote for the general principle to "leave no child behind" too! (whatever that means!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 On a side note, what idiot does the hiring/formatting at CNN? Paula Zahn was a great addition, but is anyone surprised that retread losers like Phil Donahue and Connie Chung can't generate an audience? I still can't figure out how Connie Chung ever got an TV. She has no presence, no charisma, no discernible intellect. Makes ya wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Agree on Chung. She was a younger, Asian (which was a novelty at the time) Baba Wawa, but she's not half the interviewer that Barbara is. FYI - Donohue was just booted from MSNBC, not CNN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 For an interview, Barbara Walters still kicks a$$. Anyone catch the interview with the "Preppy Murderer" Robert Chambers last night? Don't know who the guy was doing the interview, but he was giving it to him pretty good. Chambers still clings to his story even in the face of contradicting evidence. The interviewer pretty much told him he was full of $hit ... and everyone knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.