• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Times Bias

Beaudreaux said:
Joe Scarborough
Click to expand...
When was JS a top reporter for the paper of record and fully embedded in the Bush WH... and a direct mouthpiece for A. Chalabi? And here I thought you could at least understand the context.
 
vesper said:
Yes sweetie I agree that it is painful to read day after day revision of current history on this forum and elsewhere. It was painful watching the Democrats after voting to invade Iraq flip flop when it came closer to the next presidential election. In 2003 the OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats voted to invade Iraq on the intelligence they had.

You know it is important to point out that during the Clinton years there were a lot of things that happened that did not allow agencies from sharing data with another.

It is important to point out that all 19 terrorists that were involved in bringing down the towers entered this country under the Clinton administration.

It is also important to point out that Bush had a rocky road upon his election being validated because Al Gore was not willing to concede so we had countless weeks of hanging chads. When Bush was finally declared the winner, he was weeks behind setting up a team. It has always been assumed that national security issues were non partisan and Bush kept on much of Clinton's team during his transition.

It is also important to recognize much of the data collected on terrorism that the Congress viewed came from the Clinton team which brought about almost an unanimous vote from the Democratic Congress folks in supporting Bush in his endeavors.

All 19 terrorists that brought down the two buildings in the trade center got into this country under Bill Clinton and his policies. Eight months later Bush had to deal with it.

Look, I was never a big supporter of GWB. I only voted for him because he chose Cheney as VP and the only other choice was an asshole who trashed Vietnam vets. You know my hubby served during Vietnam. He enlisted and gave up a full scholarship to OSU in art. When John Kerry became the candidate for the Democrat party, I never seen my hubby dig in his pockets so deep to fight him. He hated that guy for what he did to Vietnam vets. And that is saying something as he was a registered Democrat.

I on the other hand was a registered Republican. I wasn't fond of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" BS. That to me was code for Big Government. And I was right. But the trashing of him and his administration through the MSM and the left has been nothing but an assassination over unfounded rhetoric. And in the process they besmirched our military. I have no tolerance for that. None.
Click to expand...

The Democrats didn't vote overwhelming for the Iraq resolution. 82 Democrats in the House did, 29 in the Senate that's about 20%.

The 19 terrorist got here legally. And the Democrats didn't besmirch the military, they wanted bring them home.
President Bush didn't have to deal with Iraq as they didn't attack us.

Get your facts straight next time.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
When was JS a top reporter for the paper of record and fully embedded in the Bush WH... and a direct mouthpiece for A. Chalabi? And here I thought you could at least understand the context.
Click to expand...

I understood the context. I thought it was just as apropos to post Joe's name. I could have posted Peter Arnett, or Ernest Hemingway , or Ernie Pyle, or a dozen other war correspondents that had an agenda. Some good, some not so much.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I understood the context. I thought it was just as apropos to post Joe's name. I could have posted Peter Arnett, or Ernest Hemingway , or Ernie Pyle, or a dozen other war correspondents that had an agenda. Some good, some not so much.
Click to expand...
Once again, you did not understand the, nay, YOUR OWN, context. None of these were REPORTERS for the NYT...or... who had an editor that allowed the paper to become an instrument of the Bush WH in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco.

Why don't you go back and read the words of yours that I quoted in post 21 and see if you can't figure out what the/your context is.
 
pbrauer said:
The Democrats didn't vote overwhelming for the Iraq resolution. 82 Democrats in the House did, 29 in the Senate that's about 20%.

The 19 terrorist got here legally. And the Democrats didn't besmirch the military, they wanted bring them home.
President Bush didn't have to deal with Iraq as they didn't attack us.

Get your facts straight next time.
Click to expand...


29 Democrats voted for the resolution. 29 Democrats equates to 58% of the Democratic Senators. Is that not a majority? The vote included yeas from the likes of Hillary Clinton (currently frontrunner for the Democratic nomination). Joe Biden, (the Vice President), John Kerry, (Secretary of State), and Harry Reid (currently minority leader in the Senate)


82 of 209 Democratic representatives in the House voted for the solution. That equates to almost 40% of the Democrats. (39.2%)

When you have a Republican sitting president and almost 40% of the Democratic representatives voting yea for the resolution in the House and 58% of Democratic senators voting yea in the Senate, that's pretty significant.

Yes the 19 terrorists came to this country "legally" and they arrived during Bill Clinton's administration in 2000. Before 9/11, various intelligence agencies had identified specific al Qaeda operatives as possible terrorists. Four of the hijackers were on that list. Unfortunately this information was not shared with the Federal Aviation Administration which is the agency responsible for screening airline passengers. They did not have access to the CIA intelligence database. The reason? Bill Clinton administration.

In 1995, our intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information sharing between CIA and FBI. At the time folks were warning the Clinton administration that this will cost lives. And it surely did.

I've got my facts right and my math is pretty good too.
 
vesper said:
29 Democrats voted for the resolution. 29 Democrats equates to 58% of the Democratic Senators. Is that not a majority? The vote included yeas from the likes of Hillary Clinton (currently frontrunner for the Democratic nomination). Joe Biden, (the Vice President), John Kerry, (Secretary of State), and Harry Reid (currently minority leader in the Senate)


82 of 209 Democratic representatives in the House voted for the solution. That equates to almost 40% of the Democrats. (39.2%)

When you have a Republican sitting president and almost 40% of the Democratic representatives voting yea for the resolution in the House and 58% of Democratic senators voting yea in the Senate, that's pretty significant.

Yes the 19 terrorists came to this country "legally" and they arrived during Bill Clinton's administration in 2000. Before 9/11, various intelligence agencies had identified specific al Qaeda operatives as possible terrorists. Four of the hijackers were on that list. Unfortunately this information was not shared with the Federal Aviation Administration which is the agency responsible for screening airline passengers. They did not have access to the CIA intelligence database. The reason? Bill Clinton administration.

In 1995, our intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information sharing between CIA and FBI. At the time folks were warning the Clinton administration that this will cost lives. And it surely did.

I've got my facts right and my math is pretty good too.
Click to expand...

Your math is wrong.
There are 535 voting members in Congress, 435*in the House and 100 in the Senate.
There are 29 Democrats in the Senate and 82 in the House for a total of 111
111 divided by 535 times 100 equals 20.37%
111 / 535 x 100 = 20.37%

* there are 438 members in the House however 3 of them can't vote because they are from U.S. possessions.
 
pbrauer said:
Your math is wrong.
There are 535 voting members in Congress, 435*in the House and 100 in the Senate.
There are 29 Democrats in the Senate and 82 in the House for a total of 111
111 divided by 535 times 100 equals 20.37%
111 / 535 x 100 = 20.37%

* there are 438 members in the House however 3 of them can't vote because they are from U.S. possessions.
Click to expand...

There were 430 votes cast in the House and 100 in the Senate

Here, let Wiki help you......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
 
pbrauer said:
I know, that's where I got my numbers from. I repeat, your math is wrong. You can't make percentages meaningfull unless they they have the same denominator.
Click to expand...

My math matches what is posted at wiki.

82 of 209 Democrats in the House voted for the resolution. That comes to almost 40% of the Democrats (39.2% to be exact)
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution
 
Gimmesometruth said:
even by your math this is false.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define overwhelming majority. I don't think mathematics defines it. When you have 58% of Democratic senators voting for the resolution considering it was a Republican president requesting it, that's pretty big.
 
vesper said:
It depends on how you define overwhelming majority. I don't think mathematics defines it. When you have 58% of Democratic senators voting for the resolution considering it was a Republican president requesting it, that's pretty big.
Click to expand...
Um, you said "Dems", a vote on resolutions requires both houses, so now the only out you have to to remove House Dems from your math.

Your original statement remains false.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, you said "Dems", a vote on resolutions requires both houses, so now the only out you have to to remove House Dems from your math.

Your original statement remains false.
Click to expand...

I should have included "Senate". But almost 40% of Democrats voted for the resolution in the House. That's pretty significant as well

So the final count still remains 58% of Democratic Senators voted for the resolution. Including big names of the party. Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer.............

Incase you have forgotten who they were....

Lincoln (D-AR)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Biden (D-DE)
Carper (D-DE)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Cleland (D-GA)
Miller (D-GA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Clinton (D-NY)
Schumer (D-NY)
Edwards (D-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Hollings (D-SC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Johnson (D-SD)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Kohl (D-WI)
 
vesper said:
I should have included "Senate".
Click to expand...
You did include "Senate", you left out HOUSE votes, again, passage of the resolution requires both houses to pass, the Congressional Dems were in the minority on the vote.

Your statement remains false.
 
vesper said:
My math matches what is posted at wiki.

82 of 209 Democrats in the House voted for the resolution. That comes to almost 40% of the Democrats (39.2% to be exact)
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Wiki's math they are correct. I do have a problem with your math or logiic. It makes no sence to show the percentage of Democrats who voted for the resolution and then combine the two. Do you deny that only 111 Democrats voted for the resolution or about 20.37% of Congress?

House:
PartyYeasNaysNot
Voting
Republican21562
Democratic821261
Independent010
TOTALS2971333
Senate:

PartyYeasNays
Republican481
Democratic2921
Independent01
TOTALS7723
 
pbrauer said:
I have no problem with Wiki's math they are correct. I do have a problem with your math or logiic. It makes no sence to show the percentage of Democrats who voted for the resolution and then combine the two. Do you deny that only 111 Democrats voted for the resolution or about 20.37% of Congress?

House:
PartyYeasNaysNot
Voting
Republican21562
Democratic821261
Independent010
TOTALS2971333
Senate:

PartyYeasNays
Republican481
Democratic2921
Independent01
TOTALS7723
Click to expand...

And their percentages on that very same page matched what I quoted. 29 Democratic votes out of 50 cast by Democrats in the Senate equals 58% of Democrats voted for the resolution. 82 Democrat votes out of 208 cast in the House equates to 39.2% of Democrats voting for the resolution.

Gimmesometruth said:
You did include "Senate", you left out HOUSE votes, again, passage of the resolution requires both houses to pass, the Congressional Dems were in the minority on the vote.

Your statement remains false.
Click to expand...

You are going to have to recognize that Democrats had a big roll in getting the resolution passed. Democrats were the minority in the House and the majority in the Senate. The Hastert R -Gephardt D proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.

Now it only takes a majority vote to pass a joint resolution in Congress. This would take a simple majority in both Houses of Congress. 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate if all seats are filled and everybody votes. The VP could break a tie-vote in the Senate.

Not every Republican voted and six Republicans voted against it. They did not have the 218 votes. They had 209. If Democrats were so against this resolution all they had to do is all vote no and it would have been defeated in the House. But instead 82 Democrats joined with the Republicans. In the Senate, Democrats had the majority by one and one Independent Jumpin Jim Jeffords that voted with them. If they were so against the resolution they could of all voted Nay and it would have been defeated. But instead, 58% of the Democrats voted for it.

It's been 13 years and it's time Democrats take responsibility for their part in the passing of the resolution to invade Iraq.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
And their percentages on that very same page matched what I quoted. 29 Democratic votes out of 50 cast by Democrats in the Senate equals 58% of Democrats voted for the resolution. 82 Democrat votes out of 208 cast in the House equates to 39.2% of Democrats voting for the resolution.



You are going to have to recognize that Democrats had a big roll in getting the resolution passed. Democrats were the minority in the House and the majority in the Senate. The Hastert R -Gephardt D proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.

Now it only takes a majority vote to pass a joint resolution in Congress. This would take a simple majority in both Houses of Congress. 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate if all seats are filled and everybody votes. The VP could break a tie-vote in the Senate.

Not every Republican voted and six Republicans voted against it. They did not have the 218 votes. They had 209. If Democrats were so against this resolution all they had to do is all vote no and it would have been defeated in the House. But instead 82 Democrats joined with the Republicans. In the Senate, Democrats had the majority by one and one Independent Jumpin Jim Jeffords that voted with them. If they were so against the resolution they could of all voted Nay and it would have been defeated. But instead, 58% of the Democrats voted for it.

It's been 13 years and it's time Democrats take responsibility for their part in the passing of the resolution to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
Correction- Republicans had 215 yea votes in the House and still shy of a majority vote. The only Independent was Bernie Saunders and he voted nay.
 
vesper said:
And their percentages on that very same page matched what I quoted. 29 Democratic votes out of 50 cast by Democrats in the Senate equals 58% of Democrats voted for the resolution. 82 Democrat votes out of 208 cast in the House equates to 39.2% of Democrats voting for the resolution.



You are going to have to recognize that Democrats had a big roll in getting the resolution passed. Democrats were the minority in the House and the majority in the Senate. The Hastert R -Gephardt D proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.

Now it only takes a majority vote to pass a joint resolution in Congress. This would take a simple majority in both Houses of Congress. 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate if all seats are filled and everybody votes. The VP could break a tie-vote in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Are you going to answer my question?
Do you deny that only 111 Democrats voted for the resolution or about 20.37% of Congress?
 
pbrauer said:
Are you going to answer my question?
Do you deny that only 111 Democrats voted for the resolution or about 20.37% of Congress?
Click to expand...
I already answered your question.
Those 111 Democrats made up 58% of the Democrats in the Senate and 39.2% of the Democrats in the House.
As I stated before, the Republicans alone did not have enough to reach the threshold of a majority vote needed for passage in the House. It took Democrats to do that. In the Senate more Democrats voted for the resolution than against it. 29 for and 21 against. And in both the House and the Senate looking at the final vote if every Democrat had voted Nay, it would not have passed. Deal with it. It's high time Democrat congress critters own their part in our troops being sent into Iraq. It's high time for those who suffer with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) face the truth.
 
vesper said:
I already answered your question.
Those 111 Democrats made up 58% of the Democrats in the Senate and 39.2% of the Democrats in the House.
As I stated before, the Republicans alone did not have enough to reach the threshold of a majority vote needed for passage in the House. It took Democrats to do that. In the Senate more Democrats voted for the resolution than against it. 29 for and 21 against. And in both the House and the Senate looking at the final vote if every Democrat had voted Nay, it would not have passed. Deal with it. It's high time Democrat congress critters own their part in our troops being sent into Iraq. It's high time for those who suffer with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) face the truth.
Click to expand...

I have no problem blaming many of the Democrats for the passage, I know the rules. But I am asking what the percentage of total voting members of Congress were Democrats... still you won't answer.
 
vesper said:
You are going to have to recognize that Democrats had a big roll in getting the resolution passed. .
Click to expand...
Some did, but that is not the point that was under debate, the point was:

In 2003 the OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats voted to invade Iraq on the intelligence they had.​

It is a false claim, since once again you are specifying "passage" by Congress. Just accept your error and move on.
 
Bump...
Beaudreaux said:
I understood the context. I thought it was just as apropos to post Joe's name. I could have posted Peter Arnett, or Ernest Hemingway , or Ernie Pyle, or a dozen other war correspondents that had an agenda. Some good, some not so much.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
Once again, you did not understand the, nay, YOUR OWN, context. None of these were REPORTERS for the NYT...or... who had an editor that allowed the paper to become an instrument of the Bush WH in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco.

Why don't you go back and read the words of yours that I quoted in post 21 and see if you can't figure out what the/your context is.
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Some did, but that is not the point that was under debate, the point was:

In 2003 the OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats voted to invade Iraq on the intelligence they had.​

It is a false claim, since once again you are specifying "passage" by Congress. Just accept your error and move on.
Click to expand...

I already stated I should have said "in the Senate" not Congress. When you have more Democrat senators voting for something by a very comfortable margin than those in their party who voted against it becomes very significant. When we think of all the partisan votes that occur with regularity, the resolution to use military force in Iraq wasn't one of them. There was significant support for it by Democrats in both houses of Congress.
 
vesper said:
I already stated I should have said "in the Senate" not Congress.
Click to expand...
I know you said that, but as I keep showing, you keep on making your subsequent arguments about Congress. You have to, since the whole point remains that passage of the resolution is done by both houses, the vote stats include all members when you speak of Dem votes for a resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom