Why hasn't the media ever asked Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. any followup questions about this?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml

<snip>Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." He did not elaborate.


Like who were the people he saw being raped and murdered? And who were the people doing the raping and murdering?

Imagine a US Senator making a statement like the one above over 5 years ago and never get asked about any of that.

Isn't that amazing?

Now compare that to how the media has analyzed and questioned Speaker Pelosi for that past several weeks about what she said.

This is not tin foil stuff here. This is fact.

Don

[ejpoeta]

1. follow up questions require something called.....

journalism and work. the msm doesn't want to have to do any work, so they just let these guys go out there and spout without calling them on any of it. i am sure the reason they question everything the dems say is that the republicans are probably providing them with the follow up questions. i know i sound bitter and cynical.... i am. how many times have obvious lies been left to linger unchallenged! it makes me sick.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

15. UH OH, BUT THEY ARE T.V. STARS

AND THEY MAKE A TON OF MONEY

[suchadeal]

2. Not what corporate media does

Corporate media goes after liberals, not conservatives.

[SpiralHawk]

3. "Move along. There's nothing to see here." - Corporate media

[annabanana]

4. VERY good point! . . Certainly more than worth

a kick & a rec.

He did say that, it was caught on tape.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Cause Goober Graham Is A Weasel

Depending on how the political winds blow, so does little Lindsay. He knows all the dirt on torture and abuses in the military and he sad by and enabled the boooosh regime to keep this repression going despite knowing it was illegal and, most definitely, Unconstitutional.

Graham has one thing in his favor...the corporate media loves him. He stirs the shit...a hitman with the best of them. He does the "aw shucks" routine to seem reasonable and then goes right along with the rest of his corrupt party in voting against the best interests of the country. But the corporate media loves him, so he gets a pass. Nancy Pelosi? Well she doesn't play the corporate media game...why they are glad to go after her.

[Enthusiast]

6. The media is completely one sided.

This has really been driven home in the last few weeks. They have given up any appearances of fairness. The unfair media is our greatest challenge.

[No Elephants]

7. The unfair and extermely lazy media is a large challenge, but I am not sure it is

our greatest challenge. That might be the apathy of Americans eligible to vote, or the resounding success of corporate lobbyists in getting members of Congress and state legislatures to do exactly what the corporate masters want them to do. Since the American voter can impact that, but does very little to try, I'm back to apathy. Even as to corporate media, the American consumer can have an impact, but doesn't do much to try.

[Golden Raisin]

8. Don't ask. Don't tell.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

12. If Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow put this quote up demanding answers ...

... that would be the last time we seen them on TV.

But when Rachel's handlers think they may have caught Pelosi in a discrepancy she immediately gets told to, "Put a call into Pelosi's office.", demanding answers and then announce that on live TV. And she complies. She had to be very dramatic about it too. But she and her bosses give Lindsey and the Republicans a pass on blatant stuff like this. Why no calls into Lindsey's office for some clarification about this I wonder?

Make Lindsey defend rape and torture or start lying about saying it.

Don

[gratuitous]

13. Part of it is media bias, naturally

But another part of it is that despite the awesome power of the left blogosphere to point out that Republicans and their policies really aren't all that popular with the American public, the Right still drives so much discussion. The Mighty Republican Wurlitzer may wheeze and sputter, but it still plays a tune that's recognized in television and radio studios across the country. So when they "demand" answers about what minority House member Nancy Pelosi knew in 2002, as if she could do a goddam thing about it, the electronic media don't waste a lot of time asking "how high," because they were told to jump.

I suppose if we made the same sort of non-stop, relentless stink, got the video to go viral, and got someone to ask Lindsey Graham what he knew and when he knew it and what he did about it as a majority member of the Senate, we'd be treated to a shrug, an "aw shucks," and damn if he could remember what he was talking about. Then we could all safely forget about it.

[Enthusiast]

16. And that equates...........media bias.

And media bias is killing President Obama and the Democratic Party, as I observed on TV this morning.

[NNN0LHI]

23. Lindsey Graham wasn't only a majority member of the Senate at the time

He was and is a JAG officer. Which should be brought into the conversation about not only what he knew and when he knew it but also what did he do about it as a commissioned JAG officer?

Don

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Rec. nt

[spanone]

11. the u.s. media is a joke.

[donco6]

17. '+1

[Wednesdays]

14. K&R

:kick:

[Papa Boule]

18. Because they support the torture regime and don't want it dismantled n/t

[Shallah Kali]

20. Amnesty reported similar abuses in Afghanistan *before* the Iraq invasion

Amnesty & Red Cross repeatedly reported abuses in Iraq - link http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0509-05.htm

Published on Sunday, May 9, 2004 by the Sunday Herald
How Much Did They Know?
Rumsfeld knew about the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. So did the US governor in Iraq, Paul Bremer. Even the British Ministry of Defence knew. Can we really believe that Bush and Blair didn’t?

But the question of who knew what – and when – is far more complicated and potentially far more damaging than Rumsfeld’s version of events suggests.

Even before the war against Iraq, the US had been told by Amnesty International of the abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan. Reports have been delivered from the Red Cross to coalition leaders almost every month since the official end of hostilities detailing similar abuses. Another Amnesty report making those same points was handed to Paul Bremer, the US ambassador heading the coalition provisional authority in Iraq, back in June 2003.

The Ministry of Defence in London also received Amnesty reports on abuse in the months immediately after the war.

The Rumsfeld version of events would have us believe that none of these complaints got to Bush before he briefed him on January 16 ... and even then the defence secretary “never gave the President a briefing with the impact that one would have had, had you seen the photographs or the videos”. Bush himself is insistent that the “first time I saw or heard about pictures,” was on TV.

The extent of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s knowledge is equally hazy. The MoD insists that the US report into the abuses in January was not officially sent to it but confirms he was aware of the contents. A spokesman told the Sunday Herald “it would have been logical” that the MoD would have seen the previous reports by Amnesty and the Red Cross. It’s not clear when Blair was made aware of the impending crisis, although he certainly did not refer to it publicly until the first, awful pictures from Abu Ghraib prison were in the public realm.

So why is the media failing to go back and grill those who actually were in charge Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer etc? This does not absolve anyone with lessor power who DID know what was going on in military prisons. It simply means the biggest share of the blame justly belongs to those who were in power.

All this fuss about Pelosi IMO is just a way to take the attention and blame off of the bush admin. And the media is letting them do it!

[tom_paine]

21. Because the Corporate Toady M$M doesn't question Bushies and their Vassals

Period. End of Story.

Of course, had Lindsey had a D after his name, it would have been kicked around steadily 24/7 for a week, rehashed once a week at least for months afterward, and re-referenced thereafter sporadically to arouse contempt for Democrats.

[NNN0LHI]

22. You are right

No Dem could have gotten away with saying it. Even the TV celebrities and sources who we think are liberal would have been all over it had it been a Dem. Front page of the NYT and WaPo for sure.

Don