Democrats are deeply saddned>>

[PatPatriot]

FT tops list of world's best newspapers - survey









































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































BERLIN, July 5 (Reuters) - The Financial Times topped a list of the world's best newspapers, according to a survey of executives, politicians, university lecturers, journalists and advertising professionals conducted by a Swiss-based consultant.

Among 1,000 respondents from 50 countries, 19.4 percent chose the FT as the best paper, according to the survey by Zurich-based Internationale Medienhilfe published on Tuesday.

The Wall Street Journal took second place with 17.0 percent, followed by Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in third with 16.2 percent.

The New York Times slipped from first place in the 2003 survey to sixth, its score dropping to 8.1 percent from 21.3 percent. "The results show that the New York Times is suffering because of past scandals, while German-language publications remain highly respected internationally," Internationale Medienhilfe said in a statement.


Asahi Shimbun of Japan and Italy's Corriere della Sera appeared in the top 10 for the first time, in eighth and 10th places, respectively.


Following are the results of the survey. Figures in brackets show 2003 survey results:


Position Publication, country Mentions (pct)


1 Financial Times (U.K.) 19.4 (20.7)


2 Wall Street Journal (U.S.) 17.0 (7.5)


3 Frankfurter Allgemeine (Germany) 16.2 (10.9)


4 Le Monde (France) 12.5 (2.1)


5 Neue Zuercher Zeitung (Switzerland) 12.1 (15.0)


6 New York Times (U.S.) 8.1 (21.3)


7 Intl. Herald Tribune (France) 5.2 (11.3)


8 Asahi Shimbun (Japan) 2.6 (0.4)


9 El Pais (Spain) 1.9 (4.8)


10 Corriere della Sera (Italy) 1.3 (0.7)


Other papers 3.7 (3.8)















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































BERLIN, July 5 (Reuters) - The Financial Times topped a list of the world's best newspapers, according to a survey of executives, politicians, university lecturers, journalists and advertising professionals conducted by a Swiss-based consultant.

Among 1,000 respondents from 50 countries, 19.4 percent chose the FT as the best paper, according to the survey by Zurich-based Internationale Medienhilfe published on Tuesday.

The Wall Street Journal took second place with 17.0 percent, followed by Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in third with 16.2 percent.

The New York Times slipped from first place in the 2003 survey to sixth, its score dropping to 8.1 percent from 21.3 percent. "The results show that the New York Times is suffering because of past scandals, while German-language publications remain highly respected internationally," Internationale Medienhilfe said in a statement.



Asahi Shimbun of Japan and Italy's Corriere della Sera appeared in the top 10 for the first time, in eighth and 10th places, respectively.


Following are the results of the survey. Figures in brackets show 2003 survey results:


Position Publication, country Mentions (pct)


1 Financial Times (U.K.) 19.4 (20.7)


2 Wall Street Journal (U.S.) 17.0 (7.5)


3 Frankfurter Allgemeine (Germany) 16.2 (10.9)


4 Le Monde (France) 12.5 (2.1)


5 Neue Zuercher Zeitung (Switzerland) 12.1 (15.0)


6 New York Times (U.S.) 8.1 (21.3)


7 Intl. Herald Tribune (France) 5.2 (11.3)


8 Asahi Shimbun (Japan) 2.6 (0.4)


9 El Pais (Spain) 1.9 (4.8)


10 Corriere della Sera (Italy) 1.3 (0.7)


Other papers 3.7 (3.8)

 

[edub69]

Financial Times

Time to consider Iraq withdrawal
Published: September 10 2004 03:00 | Last updated: September 10 2004 03:00


This week a macabre milestone was passed in Iraq. More than 1,000 American soldiers have now been killed since the US-led invasion of the country began nearly 18 months ago. The overwhelming majority lost their lives after President George W. Bush declared major combat operations over in his now infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo-opportunity in May last year.

In that time, an unknown number of mostly civilian Iraqis, certainly not less than 10,000 and possibly three times that number, have perished, and hundreds more are dying each week. After an invasion and occupation that promised them freedom, Iraqis have seen their security evaporate, their state smashed and their country fragment into a lawless archipelago ruled by militias, bandits and kidnappers.

The transitional political process, designed to lead to constituent assembly and general elections next year, has been undermined because the nervous US-dominated occupation authority has insisted on hand-picking various permutations of interim Iraqi governors, mostly exiles or expatriates with no standing among their people. Whatever Iraqis thought about the Americans on their way in - and it was never what these emigré politicians told Washington they would be thinking - an overwhelming majority now views US forces as occupiers rather than liberators and wants them out.

The aftermath of a war won so quickly has been so utterly bungled, moreover, that the US is down to the last vestiges of its always exiguous allied support, at the time when Iraq needs every bit of help it can get. The occupation has lost control of big swathes of the country. Having decided that all those who lived and worked in Iraq under Saddam Hussein bore some degree of collective guilt, Washington's viceroys purged the country's armed forces, civil service and institutions to a degree that broke the back of the state, marginalised internal political forces, sidelined many with the skills to rebuild Iraq's services and utilities and, of course, fuelled an insurgency US forces have yet to identify accurately, let alone get to grips with.

There are signs that US officials are beginning to "get it" - in the phrase Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, patronisingly used this week to characterise Iraqis' grasp of the security situation. But if they are increasingly aware that what they have created in Iraq is a disaster, they seem at a loss to know what to do about it.

The core question to be addressed is this: is the continuing presence of US military forces in Iraq part of the solution or part of the problem?

As occupying power, the US bears responsibility for Iraq under international law, and is duty-bound to try to leave it in better shape than it found it. But there is no sign of that happening.

The time has therefore come to consider whether a structured withdrawal of US and remaining allied troops, in tandem with a workable handover of security to Iraqi forces and a legitimate and inclusive political process, can chart a path out of the current chaos.

Faced with a withdrawal timetable, Iraqis who currently feel helpless will know that the opportunity to craft a better future lies in their hands.

Take security. Iraqi forces are being rebuilt to take over front-line tasks. This is slow work, but that is not the real problem. It is that those forces already trained cannot stand alongside a US military that daily rains thousands of tonnes of projectiles and high explosives on their compatriots. Each time there is a siege of Fallujah or Najaf, with the US using firepower that kills civilians by the hundred, these Iraqi forces melt away. Until eventual withdrawal, there would have to be a policy of military restraint, imposed above all on those US commanders who have operated without reference to their own superiors, let alone the notionally sovereign Iraqi government.

Politically, if next year's elections are to have any chance of reflecting the will of the Iraqi people, the process must be opened up. Last month's national conference or proto-assembly was monopolised by expatriate politicians aligned with the interim government of Iyad Allawi. The only way national coalitions can be woven from Iraq's religious and ethnic patchwork is by including the opposition to the occupation. That means negotiating with the insurgents, probably through religious leaders of the stature of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. It also means an amnesty, which should help Iraqi authorities acquire the legitimacy to crush jihadist and other hold-outs.

Ideally, the US would accompany withdrawal by stating it has no intention of establishing bases in Iraq, and instead wishes to facilitate regional security agreements. That would be more stabilising than the current policy of bullying neighbours such as Iran and Syria, whose borders with Iraq the US in any case cannot control.

None of this will be less than messy. But whether Mr Bush or John Kerry wins the upcoming election, the US will eventually have to do something like this. Chaos is a great risk, and occupiers through the ages have pointed to that risk as their reason for staying put. But chaos is already here, and the power that is in large part responsible for it must start preparing now to step aside and let the Iraqis try to emerge from it.

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/ft6.htm

 

[D2bets]

I need you to tell me how to feel, so please enlighten us Patriot, why should us Democrats be saddened by this?

BTW, that FT article makes a lot of sense.

 

[PatPatriot]

Because people are finally catching up to the fact that the NY Times is nothing more than an anti American propaganda scandal sheet with a left wing agenda.


In other words..People aren't buying what there trying to sell, and the proofs in the pudding.

 

[edub69]

I don't see why any of us would give a rat's ass. I have never purchased a copy of the NY Times, occasionally I'll get a link to a story there from the web and that's about it. The NYT has no more place in my life than Fox News. You have this fantasy that all liberals/democrats don't know what they think until they wake up and read the NYT, because you can't fathom how anyone would think that Bush is a real douchebag without reading it somewhere else first.

 

[TheRightWing]

I use the Times when I'm painting the walls so paint won't drip on the carpeting.

 

[docmercer--banned]

wow ....

Patriot ...does that mean I should turn to the "Bush Broadcasting Network" (FOX) for the "Fair and Balanced" news???

The Right controls the media in this country

 

[TheRightWing]

Sorry everyone I apoligize for you having to read Doc's nonsense without the Warning and hope it didn't sink in yet.

 

[PatPatriot]

I don't see why any of us would give a rat's ass. I have never purchased a copy of the NY Times, occasionally I'll get a link to a story there from the web and that's about it. The NYT has no more place in my life than Fox News. You have this fantasy that all liberals/democrats don't know what they think until they wake up and read the NYT, because you can't fathom how anyone would think that Bush is a real douchebag without reading it somewhere else first.
<!-- / message -->

Most every televised newscast and every major paper in the US including the LA Times gets their que from the NY times...they are the paper of record.
So in the broad scope of things edu,i really don't think they give a hoot if you read them or not...but you do...just not directley.they are the pied piper for the left wing lame stream media agenda and always have been.

Like most left wingers they freak out when they are challenged by other thoughts and opinions.

 

[D2bets]

Never read the NY Times, can't comment.

Between the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, I'll take the Sun-Times every day of the week. Especially because it turns like a book and not like an oversized legal document.

 

[edub69]

Most every televised newscast and every major paper in the US including the LA Times gets their que from the NY times...they are the paper of record.
So in the broad scope of things edu,i really don't think they give a hoot if you read them or not...but you do...just not directley.they are the pied piper for the left wing lame stream media agenda and always have been.

Like most left wingers they freak out when they are challenged by other thoughts and opinions.

Left wingers freak out when they are challenged by other thoughts and opinions? We're not the ones rushing to call people traitors any time someone calls Bush an idiot or questions the motivation for the Iraq war. Talk about freaking out.

 

[PatPatriot]

Left wingers freak out when they are challenged by other thoughts and opinions? We're not the ones rushing to call people traitors any time someone calls Bush an idiot or questions the motivation for the Iraq war. Talk about freaking out.<!-- / message -->

In general edu the the protest are anti Bush disguised as anti war.Its always been for the left they would rather see one man out of ploitical office than 150,000 troops home.
All you would have to do is ask a poll question..."which would you rather have Bush out of office or 150,000 troops home?"...It would overwhelmingly be anti-Bush.

If Bush succeds in Iraq,the left is done for good in this country and they know it.

 

[cutacrossshorty]

they freak out when they are challenged by other thoughts and opinions.

Are there any mirrors nearby?

 

[JinnRikki]

Tell us where does NewsMax fall in that list. Oh, that's right, I forgot, NewsMax isn't about NEWS is it?

 

[CAPNCRUNCH]

In general edu the the protest are anti Bush disguised as anti war.Its always been for the left they would rather see one man out of ploitical office than 150,000 troops home.
All you would have to do is ask a poll question..."which would you rather have Bush out of office or 150,000 troops home?"...It would overwhelmingly be anti-Bush.

If Bush succeds in Iraq,the left is done for good in this country and they know it.

Pat: Didn't you know, the mission is already accomplished! W scared everyone, he got re-elected, alot of good kids got killed, and now W has to figure out how to spend his loot from his pals, the Saudis! P.S.Why can't we have both, the troops home AND Bush out of office? Your question is like asking a father which child he would prefer to have killed?:sad3:

 

[PatPatriot]

When asked why wasn't anybody protesting Clintons military escapades janeane garafolo haad this brilliant assesment.

Tinseltown has long had a soft soft for Democrats. Garofalo has confessed "it wasn't very hip" to protest Bill Clinton's deadly military misadventures

 

[PatPatriot]

[font=Courier, Times New Roman]Sunday, Feb. 23, 2003 2:59 p.m. EST

Janeane Garofalo: 'It Wasn't Hip' to Protest Clinton's Wars

Comedienne-turned-peace-activist Janeane Garofalo offered a stunning admission on Sunday, explaining that she and her fellow anti-war protesters didn't stage huge demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan because "it wasn't very hip" to protest the former president.

Asked by "Fox News Sunday's" Tony Snow why peace protesters like herself didn't object to Clinton's wars, Garofalo explained:

"I absolutely did. I did not support Operation Desert Fox. It's just that you didn't know me very well back then. Nobody really was interested in listening to me back then."

Then she added, by way of explaining why the anti-Clinton protests never gelled, "It wasn't very hip."

Garofalo went on to claim that Hollywood actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins led protests against Clinton's 1998 Iraq attack, saying that "there was a lot of protest, just as there was against the first Gulf War."

A Lexis-Nexis search for December 1998, the month Clinton bombed the daylights out of Baghdad, failed to turn up a single report that mentioned either Sarandon or Robbins protesting the attacks.

A similar search for the month of February 2003 turned up 124 reports on Sarandon protesting President Bush's Iraq policy.

Read more on this subject in related


And thats true I saw the interview.
[/font]

 

[edub69]

In general edu the the protest are anti Bush disguised as anti war.Its always been for the left they would rather see one man out of ploitical office than 150,000 troops home.
All you would have to do is ask a poll question..."which would you rather have Bush out of office or 150,000 troops home?"...It would overwhelmingly be anti-Bush.

Pure speculation on your part. You have no insight into the mind of a liberal whatsoever.

If Bush succeds in Iraq,the left is done for good in this country and they know it

Well then fortunately for the left, success in Iraq is not going to come quickly at all. Definitely not before Bush is out of office. Who knows, maybe when the next president, a democrat, comes in and cleans up Bush's mess, they'll be the one to take credit for it. Meanwhile the right will whine about how Bush is really the one who should be praised.

 

[PatPatriot]

Pat: Didn't you know, the mission is already accomplished! W scared everyone, he got re-elected, alot of good kids got killed, and now W has to figure out how to spend his loot from his pals, the Saudis! P.S.Why can't we have both, the troops home AND Bush out of office? Your question is like asking a father which child he would prefer to have killed?

<!-- / message -->

You pretty much answered the question.It ain't about the war its about Bush,which it is very sad indeed.Rather sick actually.

 

[CAPNCRUNCH]

You pretty much answered the question.It ain't about the war its about Bush,which it is very sad indeed.Rather sick actually.

I agree!:sad3: