Fallujah finds

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Here NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admits a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming.

NPR ADMITS LIBERAL BIAS

L. Brent Bozell III

National Public Radio is properly understood, even by the media, as radio by and for liberals, not the general public. As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz puts it, the media landscape stretches "from those who cheer Fox to those who swear by NPR."

The only ones who seem not to know that the left has a massive, taxpayer-funded radio network of 700 affiliates are the liberals trying to sell investors on their own private-sector talk-radio network. A recent PBS "NewsHour" story on talk radio turned ridiculous when reporter Terence Smith allowed liberal-network booster Jon Sinton to proclaim: "Every day in America on the 45 top-rated talk radio stations, there are 310 hours of conservative talk. There is a total of five hours of talk that comes from the other side of the aisle."

Don’t buy that for a minute. The key word in that sentence is "top-rated" stations. Sinton’s upset that conservatives apparently dominate "top-rated" talk. That doesn’t mean NPR doesn’t have hundreds of hours of liberal talk shows, not to mention liberal "news" shows. It’s just not "top-rated."

Last week, NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" – a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature, and also politics – airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on September 3, and then on October 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O’Reilly. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the [O'Reilly] interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias....by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

The news reports on NPR should be cause for greater public concern. Under the guise of "objective news," reporting, the left is actively advancing its political agenda. On the October 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy, observing: "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable." NPR may as well have suggested it was time for a different president.

Reporter Mike Shuster was intent on driving home the theme that the Bush foreign policy may (read: we hope) one day be analyzed as an utter failure. His three primary, supposedly nonpartisan "experts" were Ivo Daalder, a member of Clinton’s National Security Council; Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign; and John Mearshimer, a regular critic of Bush foreign policy who argued in Foreign Policy magazine that Iraq should have remained under "vigilant containment," which we could also describe as maintaining a murderous tyrant in power. Their controversial views and Clinton connections were not developed by NPR.

Perhaps the biggest public-relations problems for NPR come when its liberal reporters hit the weekend talk-show circuit and let their opinions fly wildly. On October 18, NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg pronounced from her regular panelist perch on the TV show "Inside Washington" that General Jerry Boykin, who sermonized in Christian churches with the shocking, less-than-Unitarian message that Christianity is true and other creeds are false, should be fired.

Well, that’s not the way it came out. First, Totenberg said Boykin’s remarks were "seriously bad stuff," and then she said, "I hope he’s not long for this world." Host Gordon Peterson joked, "What is this, The Sopranos?" Withdrawing to damage-control mode, Totenberg said she didn’t mean she hoped he would die, just that he shouldn’t last long "in his job."

But it’s Totenberg who ought to fear for her job with these outbreaks of hate speech. Totenberg used this very same TV show to wish in 1995 that if the "Good Lord" knew justice, Senator Jesse Helms will "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Outing the “Liberal Democrats” at NPR

by Nathan Tabor

03 June 2005

In NPR, liberals have their own government-protected, lavishly supported, politically correct propaganda network.

Recently I had the idea of researching what the other side is doing, so I decided to search Google.com for the words “Liberal Democrat.” I found some very interesting things.

The first page of results contained mostly links for the Liberal Party in the UK and Europe -- nothing at all to do with either Liberals or Democrats in America. The paid ads dealt with topics like “Dating for Democrats” and “Anti-Bush Gear,” and of course the Leftist propaganda website MoveOn.org was prominently featured.

However, the most interesting aspect of this Google search was the paid ad for National Public Radio at the top of the page. The ad declared:

Liberal Democrat. www.NPR.org. Objective, in-depth & informed political coverage & analysis.

If you search Google for “Conservative Republican,” however, you will not find any ads for NPR. It is obvious what type of listener NPR really wants to reach. Their political content is clearly biased and leans strongly to the Left.

What is NPR? One online encyclopedia calls National Public Radio a “loosely organized public radio network” that was founded in 1970 (after passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967) and created to broadcast news and cultural programming. Here’s how the encyclopedia glowingly describes that network:

NPR is an internationally acclaimed producer and distributor of noncommercial news, talk, and entertainment programming. A privately supported, not-for-profit membership organization, NPR serves a growing audience of 26 million Americans each week in partnership with more than 780 independently operated, noncommercial public radio stations.

I personally suspect that “growing audience of 26 million” consists mostly of the hardcore Left-wingers left over from the student radical movements of the 1960s and 70s.

So, exactly who funds NPR?

Well, first of all, NPR charges hefty fees to the member stations who receive its programming, and that accounts for about half of its current $100 MILLION annual budget. The rest comes from private donations, corporate contributions, and grants from charitable foundations, often to underwrite specific projects.

Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, the lion’s share of NPR’s support came from the U.S. taxpayers via the Federal government. But during the Reagan years, Conservative critics wanted to de-fund NPR completely, and that led to both a major funding crisis in 1983 and to massive changes in NPR’s support structure. Today only about 2 percent of NPR’s total funding comes from government grants and programs.

NPR network member stations also benefit from both private donations and government funding, but they are notorious for raising money through periodic on-the-air pledge drives which appeal to their well-heeled Lefty listeners to donate money to “Save Public Radio,” or to keep so-called “quality programming” on the air. Unfortunately, there is really no danger of NPR’s Liberal agenda fading into the sunset anytime soon.

Urban myths abound. In 1995, for example, two Left-leaning college students started an e-mail petition in which they falsely claimed that Nina Totenberg had warned her Morning Edition listeners that “if the Supreme Court supports Congress [in efforts to de-fund NPR], it will, in effect, be the end of National Public Radio.” Although the nonexistent funding crisis has long passed, that bogus chain letter refuses to die and continues to circulate on the Internet -- much like the equally bogus “FCC Petition” that has Dr. Dobson allegedly warning Christians that the Gospel is about to be banned from the airwaves.

NPR carries no traditional advertising but does broadcast brief PR statements from its major donors. These lofty statements of humanitarian goodwill are called “underwriting spots,” not commercials, and are bound by certain FCC restrictions. For example, these spots cannot promote any product nor advocate any “call to action.” This ban on commercial advertisements is supposed to keep NPR’s pristine “public” programming unsullied by the corrupting influences of capitalism.

The net effect, however, has been to reinforce its promotion of All Things Liberal. Since NPR is not dependent on traditional advertising revenue, its producers are largely free of the economic decision-making process that is driven by ratings -- and thus NPR is also less accountable to the general market. The result is programming that some may consider to be “less sensationalistic,” but which is more blatantly biased than what most mainstream listeners would normally accept.

In 2003, the estate of McDonald’s Corporation heiress Joan B. Kroc (the widow of Golden Arches founder Ray Kroc) gave a super-sized $200 MILLION bequest to NPR -- a huge windfall equal to twice NPR’s annual operating budget. Clearly NPR’s tragic funding crisis is now but a vestige of the dim and distant past.

Liberals love to complain about Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and other Conservative media personalities whose common sense messages resonate with millions of grassroots Americans -- many of whom also happen to be Republicans.

But those same Liberals are loath to admit that in NPR, they have their own government-protected, lavishly supported, politically correct propaganda network created especially for Liberal Democrats. Let’s just let the truth be known.

Since NPR clearly has a liberal and biased agenda I believe it only fair they give back the millions the government gave them to start their business. You think that will happen?

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz puts it, the media landscape stretches "from those who cheer Fox to those who swear by NPR."

That quote could be based on just about anything. Preference to media (TV contra Radio), nuttiness of reporters "I like nutty reporters, but preffer Hannity to Burnett", or just about anything.

To base the thesis that "NPR is liberal" on one show with reporter Gross is stretching and bending over backwards in perpetual loop to try to make it fit. I am certain I can come up with one pro Bush thing that NPR has aired, to be able to (just as amply) brand NPR as having conservative bias.

-----

Rush Limbaugh is a "conservative media personality"? Riight. Neal Boortz is an independent Libertarian and Ann Coulter a conservative journalist (look at Ann attacking that student Jean Rohe. Wow, that Anne Coulter certainly has courage and character. The question is only what kind...) :lol

To claim that NPR is "Liberal" and hold up Rush Limbaugh as a "Conservative" is rich beyond comparison.

I am a conservative of the fiscal responsibility kind and would rather listen to NPR (if only to pinpoint their White House watercarrying) than to Limbaugh, Boortz or Coulter, who none of them represent my image of a conservative, but rather the image of an ill informed neo-con mouthpiece in dire need of debate class.

Edited by: Galmin at: 5/26/06 10:17

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

"That quote could be based on just about anything."

Correct. It just happens to be based on the truth

"To base the thesis that "NPR is liberal" on one show with reporter Gross is stretching and bending over backwards in perpetual loop to try to make it fit."

Maybe, but nobody did. I base my observation on regular listenings. This faulty assumption rather undermines the rest of your argument.

"I can come up with one pro Bush thing that NPR has aired . . . "

Not necessarily. You see, it would depend on the pro-Bush thing aired. If they aired a feature on how he's nice to his dog, that wouldn't illustrate any conservative bias. Many liberals like dogs.

"Rush Limbaugh is a "conservative media personality"?

Correct.

To claim that NPR is "Liberal" and hold up Rush Limbaugh as a "Conservative" is rich beyond comparison.

No, it isn't. Not by my definition of the word 'rich'. It's actually quite accurate.

"Limbaugh . . . represent[s] my image . . . of an ill informed neo-con mouthpiece"

So? You want to debate Rush Limbaugh? Good Luck with that, Galmin. The minute you gain the upper hand he'll cut off your phone call. But let me know when you get thru in any case. I'll have the tape recorder handy.

:boink

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
It just happens to be based on the truth

Probably, question remains what that truth actually is about.

Quote:
Maybe, but nobody did. I base my observation on regular listenings.

Are you L. Brent Bozell III? He did.

Quote:
Not necessarily.

I cannot?

Quote:
Many liberals like dogs.

They probably do. Superflous speculation.

Quote:
You want to debate Rush Limbaugh?

No. Why would any sane person want to debate a drug addict who thinks he speaks for the conservatives on the radio?

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

"Brent Bozell III . . . did"

How do you know? Just because he cites a single instance in a single feature doesn't mean he bases his contention on that single instance.

"I cannot?"

I don't know. So far you have not. I'm no fortune teller. But I'd expect from you a degree of care when selecting an example of a pro-Bush story featured on NPR. (ie. a pro Bush story about how he likes dogs wouldn't prove NPR's conservative bias) I expect your quest to be be long and tedious, but . . . HAPPY HUNTING

"Limbaugh . . . represent[s] my image . . . of an ill informed neo-con mouthpiece"

So? Talk about superfluous lol As is your apropos-to-nothing attack on the man's debating abilities. Unless you're secretly hankering to have a go at him. Otherwise why bring it up? There is after all the chance that you'd never get the upper hand with him and he'd chew you up like a stale biscuit, drug dependency and all.

"Why would any sane person want to debate . . . "

. . . some guy on the internet, for that matter. You tell me

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
How do you know? Just because he cites a single instance in a single feature doesn't mean he bases his contention on that single instance.

So? In his article, L. Brent Bozell III based his thesis "NPR is liberal" on one single occurance. Lets just say for conversational purposes that in presenting only one incident in trying to make the case that "NPR is liberal", L. Brent Bozell III blew it.

Quote:
I don't know. So far you have not. I'm no fortune teller. But I'd expect from you a degree of care when selecting an example of a pro-Bush story featured on NPR. (ie. a pro Bush story about how he likes dogs wouldn't prove NPR's conservative bias)

Well, a story about one occurance doesn't prove the senders liberal bias either. Though I actually doesn't have to get a story about Bush to prove conservative bias in a Brent Bozell III:ish style, I could for instance look up stories about monetary government, a true conservative theme. I bet we'll find true traditional conservative stuff like calls for fiscal responsibility to last for an entire thesis. I'll even throw another one in: cover of capturing, trying and sending criminals to prison. A true conservative theme. Lay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Kidan, Pfeffer etc.

CPB-COMMISSIONED NATIONAL OPINION POLLS: "Both surveys confirm the same thing: The majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased."

It seems the ghost of Kenneth Tomlinson is still haunting common sense throughout the US.

Edited by: Galmin at: 5/27/06 14:06

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

"Though in his article, L. Brent Bozell III based his thesis "NPR is liberal" on one single occurance."

No, he didn't. You simply chose to ignore rest of the article. In the same article Brent Bozell builds his case thru the words of Bob Edwards ("middle east road map in tatters", indeed) Mike Shuster (hauling out Clinton advisors to criticize Bush policy), John Mearshime, (regular critic of Bush foreign policy)and Nina Totenberg (who says, "I hope [Jerry Boykin] is not long for this world." because he suggests Christianity is true).

And had you not ignored the entire post that follows, you'd have found even more evidence of NPR's liberal bias.

"Well, a story about one occurance doesn't prove the senders liberal bias either."

Of course it doesn't. Duh. But you suggested that you're pointing to "ONE PRO BUSH THING would brand NPR as having conservative bias. I then let you know that I wouldn't allow just any old pro Bush thing. Hence the "likes dogs" example.

From the CPB article:

"In the latest survey, 21% of respondents indicate that PBS news and information programming has a liberal bias, while 22% say the same thing for NPR."

That 22 percent is correct

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Let's take L. Brent Bozell III:rd step by step:

Quote:
Last week, NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming.

If he did, that's not what Bozell III quoted. Wich was this: "Unfortunately, the [O'Reilly] interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias....by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

Although I agree that the Gross interview with Franken certainly had liberal bias, NPR's ombudsman seems never to have admitted any liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming. Curiously enough, the ombudsman admitting to liberal bias in the programming was Bozell's argument.

Quote:
On the October 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy, observing: "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable." NPR may as well have suggested it was time for a different president.

Let's take them one by one:

1) "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world".

Denying this fact would be showing conservative bias?

It seems the policies of the US are very impopular dometically aswell. Pointing out results on polls for the most recent 6 months would probably be liberally biased aswell. Poor Foxnews. So, no newsreporting but what the WH press secratary dictates?

2) "The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever."

Oh, nooo. Everyone is cool with pre-emptive strikes were the reason for the attacks has to be refitted every month to fit the facts on the ground. It has been so exceedingly popular that major allies in the operation Iraqi-Freedom has had a change of government for that very reason alone. Anyone saying something else has liberal bias.

3) "The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable.""

At October 17, 2003, when this piece was aired, this was all fact. Heck, it still is! Though saying it will label your programming as having liberal bias.

Quote:
Mike Shuster (hauling out Clinton advisors to criticize Bush policy)

Ivo H. Daalder. Area of expertise: American foreign policy; arms control, nuclear weapons, missile defense; Europe; foreign policy process; national security.

Michael Mandelbaum: Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy program at the Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies.

Professor John Mearshimer, political scientist at the University of Chicago.

I agree. When scrutinizing a difficult subject it would be better to invite someone with a master in Journalism and former Nixon adviser. Like Pat Buchanan. One wouldn't want to risk being branded as inviting people who seem to have recent knowledge of how to do the job and actually pull it off.

Not good enough argument. These people are known for a job well done and the ones who have done it most recently.

Quote:
Perhaps the biggest public-relations problems for NPR come when its liberal reporters hit the weekend talk-show circuit and let their opinions fly wildly. On October 18, NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg pronounced from her regular panelist perch on the TV show "Inside Washington" that General Jerry Boykin, who sermonized in Christian churches with the shocking, less-than-Unitarian message that Christianity is true and other creeds are false, should be fired.

"War on terrorism is a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan".

The God of Islam as "an idol" and not a true God.

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this"

I guess pointing out that "crusade" may be the wrong choise of word for the President to use would be branding one as having liberal bias aswell.

The only valid point L. Brent Bozell III picks up is the Gross interview, the rest is BS. Hence, one occurance.

Quote:

That 22 percent is correct

Just as likely as the 10% saying there's a conservative bias is correct.

Remember when Richard Nixon thought public broadcasting's news reporting was unfair and sought to cut federal funding?

The 70's are back, and so is Dick.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming when he ruled that the O'Reilly interview served to "confirm the belief" in NPR's liberal bias.

Confirm (v.): corroborate, substantiate. Dvorkin admitted there was substance to the belief. Although he did, Bozell wouldn't have needed to point to any other instances to validate the title of his column, which is "NPR admits a liberal bias".

There's one bit of evidence.

You yourself agree that the Gross interview with Franken certainly had liberal bias.

That's two bits of evidence.

Quote: "On the October 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy.

That's three bits of evidence.

More evidence of NPR's liberal bias:

www.nprsucks.com/opinion5.htm

Here you'll find reference to Daniel Schorr's denouncing the Supreme Court decision to stop the Florida recount as "judicial coup."

Four bits of evidence

and Tavis Smiley show just days before the 2002 midterm election in which Clinton — in a prerecorded message — exhorted the party faithful to come out to vote.

Five.

Garrison Keillor's remark that the Bush presidency necessitated all the moron jokes to be rewritten.

Six.

The choice of commentators is likewise revealing. One famous example is the hiring of Mumia Abu-Jamal, cop killer and death row inmate, as analyst for All Things Considered. Books picked for sympathetic book reviews are almost exclusively penned by writers from the left fringe of their profession; attacking Israel or slandering Bush is a sure ticket to get on Fresh Air.

The bias against conservatives and Republicans is the most visible, though not necessarily the most fervently held one (the pro-Palestinian bias comes to mind here). Democratic politicians and former members of the Carter and Clinton administrations are frequent guests on the shows. Conservatives on NPR are as rare as a snow flake in the midst of summer.

The most influential Democratic think tank is the Brookings Institution, while the premiere think tank on the Republican side is the Heritage Foundation. When you search Google News for the two names, you find an about equal number of citations for both, with a slight advantage for the Heritage Foundation (53%). Searching for the think tanks on NPR's web site, the Heritage Foundations seems to be almost non-existent (19%). Obviously, the folks at NPR don't like to talk to fellows with conservative ideas.

Of course, the number of citations does not adequately capture the leftist bias of NPR. When conservatives occasionally do appear on NPR, the hosts often can barely hide their contempt for the ideas and causes that they stand for. It is not that they hate conservatives — they just have a hard time grasping that others may have a different view of the world. They remind me of The New Yorker's film critic Pauline Kael who after Richard Nixon's landslide victory in 1972 famously observed: "I can't believe it. I don't know a single person who voted for him."

How have PBS and NPR displayed a liberal tilt over the years?

www.mediaresearch.org/mrc...ng/pbs.asp

:ui

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
"On the October 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy.

And had these flaws been talked about by Rush Limbaugh on his radioshow, the verdict (liberal bias) would be quite the opposite.

Look, L. Brent Bozell III has been at this since at least 1987, he has dedicated MRC to it. Though if this is all that has come up throughout the 300 NPR subsidaries during all those years, one cannot help but wonder what he has filled his books: "Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media", "And That's the Way It Isn't: A Reference Guide to Media Bias"; "Pattern of Deception: The Media's Role in the Clinton Presidency"; and "How to Identify, Expose and Correct Liberal Media Bias" with.

The bottom line is: 80% of the American citizens think the national public radio is FAIR AND BALANCED! As in: actually fair and balanced and not as a punchline or slogan without merit.

Edited by: Galmin at: 5/29/06 15:56

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

"had these flaws been talked about by Rush Limbaugh on his radioshow, the verdict (liberal bias) would be quite the opposite."

Any proof?

"if this is all that has come up . . . "

Mighty big 'IF'

"The bottom line is: 80% of the American citizens think the national public radio is FAIR AND BALANCED!"

So? A better 'bottom line' would read:

It seems that, as an admitted fiscon, you tend to see NPR's conservative bias, whereas I, as a neolib, tend to see its liberal bias.

:cute

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
It seems that, as an admitted fiscon, you tend to see NPR's conservative bias, whereas I, as a neolib, tend to see its liberal bias.

I'll buy that. I didn't know you're a neolib, ans.

Hey, didya know that Bozell (you know, the guy with all the books I listed, the one who accused media of having liberal bias since some of them dared to ignore the swiftboat veterans for truth) harbours Cybercast News Service, from were a certain David Thibault is launching yet another swiftboat attack. This time the target is Rep. John P. Murtha. I bet Colonel Murtha will be deemed having inflicting his wounds on himself, filed for his own purple hearts and is generally unfit to command. What'll this new group call themselves? USMC for truth? :laugh

All this because Murtha want some answers to why the investigation about an executionraid on a couple of dozen civilian Iraqis was swept under the rug.

Bozell has earned exactly zero credibility. What a clown.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

"I bet Colonel Murtha will be deemed having inflicting his wounds on himself"

It is good you are allowed such freedom, agreed? I share the privilege to bet as I please

"What'll this new group call themselves? "

? Interesting question. Like I said before, I'm no mind reader.

"Bozell has earned exactly zero credibility. What a clown."

"CLOWN"? For a conservative you sport some rude expressions. Why the intention to offend?

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Anyone swiftboating a decorated warhero deserves a fitting denomination. It doesn't matter if that hero is Murtha or McCain. It's not as we've never seen this before. Clown is a mild expression in this particular case. These people have no spine.

Quote:
Why the intention to offend?

No intention to offend.