News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising

If America is hoping to get up to speed on what’s happening in science and the environment by watching cable they’re outta luck, If You Watch FIVE HOURS of Cable News, Expect to Find ONE MINUTE of Coverage Devoted to Either Science or the Environment

I’m genuinely surprised that Fox is even considered a news network. What ever it is, its your destination for “news” about celebrities not Iraq, Content Analysis

MSNBC, at least in terms of time spent, was indeed the place for politics in 2007 — by nearly double over its rivals in the percentage of time studied (28% vs. 12% on CNN and 15% on Fox News). Fox, in turn, spent less time on the war in Iraq than the others (10% vs. 18% on MSNBC and 16% on CNN). And it was more oriented to crime, celebrity and the media than its rivals (28% vs. 19% on MSNBC and 16% on CNN).

John Gibson did claim if you didn’t take an obsessive morbid interest in the deaths of celebrities your were a snob. Fox critiquing the media is like Bobby Knight coaching and refereeing at the same time.

White House E-Mail Battle Heats Up

The White House has three days to explain why it shouldn’t be required to copy its computer hard drives to ensure no further e-mails are lost, a federal judge ordered Tuesday.

Already, e-mails between March and October 2003 appear to have been lost, Judge John M. Facciola noted, because they were improperly archived and no backup copies exist. That period includes the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

From the Nixon tapes to the Iran-Contra documents that Ollie North shredded the Right always has something to hide. Or maybe they’re not as competent as they would have people believe. Either excuse is pretty damning.

Saint John McBush thinks that Iran (Shia Muslims) are joined at the hip to Al Qaeda ( Sunni fundamentalist) in Iraq. As Booman Tribune points out, as has a little newspaper called the Washington Post, Iran offered to help the U.S. reign in AQ after 9-11, but the Bushies rejected the offer. Like the administration that McCain wants to replace he seems to either have little grasp of relatively simple concepts when it comes to factions in the Middle-East or is doing his best to perpetuate the same myths the Right has been echoing for years. As I write this at least one Republican site is making claims just as they did with Iraq, that someone from Iran had tea one afternoon with with someone from AQ in 1996 so there’s you’re smoking gun connection, making McCain correct. The Right resents being portrayed as stupid, yet keeps publishing such obvious nonsense.

The Right is accusing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of being pro genocide as they weep over the fate of the Iraqi people. That sounds like some cynical joke, but its not, The genocide supporters try to do some blame shifting

Naturally, we couldn’t help clicking. And that brought us to the article that contained today’s quote of the day, one Michael Rubin, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, gave to

I used to give Nancy Pelosi benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think she’ll be happy until we have a Rwanda-like genocide. Pelosi is perhaps the worst example of a liberal racist: She sees Iraqis as nothing more than a template upon which to fight a partisan battle. It really is disgraceful.

Later in the article, another AEI resident fellow, Thomas Donnelly, says, “Clearly, there is no measure of success in Iraq that could satisfy her [Pelosi] or others who have invested so much political capital in the narrative of the ‘Lost War.'”

One of the reasons that violence in Iraq’s capital city is down a little from previous years is that the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Shia has been largely successful, How to stop genocide in Iraq

But with only one-third of the new troops on duty at any given time in a city of 6 million people, they will have no more success deterring the militias intent on carving out homogeneous Shiite or Sunni neighborhoods than U.S. forces have had to date. About 74% of Shiites polled and 91% of Sunnis — the people who have the most to fear from genocide — would like to see U.S. forces gone by the end of the year.

When both Sunni and Shia think they have a better chance of sorting things out without a U.S. presence, maybe Speaker Pelosi knows how to listen while Brent Bozell still operates from an insulated mental bunker.

Estimates of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close to Ballpark

At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government.

Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.

The pre occupation population of Iraq was 25 million. It literally would have been cheaper to offer a bribe to every Iraqi of a couple million dollars to get rid of Saddam themselves.

“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” ~ Lord Northcliffe