PDA

View Full Version : Liberal Media distorts Iraq War



Apokalupsis
January 31st, 2005, 03:47 PM
*note*
The following contains Apok's rant, then portions of an article to support the rant, then a link to the full article. The article itself is very long...but for those who are interested in this topic (the war and how it is being reported), it is a very important article. The article includes DETAILED ans SPECIFIC instances and points that are necessary and often not heard enough...or rather...would NEVER be told by mainstream American "sell out" media.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it the case that we -- as a consumer audience and dependents of mainstream media -- are getting the "actual factuals" on the events in Iraq? Some believe not. In fact, some argue that the media purposefully distorts the events. Those who disagree with the mainstream media, are those who are actually there, on the ground, experiencing those events firsthand.

Does the media have a responsibility to tell the complete story? Or since it is a consumer industry, is it acceptable to "tell what will sell"? It is my position that the media does have a responsibility to objectively and truthfully report the facts as they happen. And this includes telling the whole story, not choosing bits and pieces that further the budget or political agenda.

The media has a nasty habit of primarily reporting the bad, which paints a distorted view of what is actually going on. We don't hear about the overwhelming successes. We don't hear about the dispicable acts that the insurgents are guilty of. However, we do hear about it when an American is guilty. In fact, we can't get enough of it apparently.

One could also make the case that it is the media that bears some of the blame for the difficulties faced by the troops. If how they report can negatively impact the morale of American troops, and positively encourage the enemy, couldn't this be seen as criminal? Some of those being placed in harm's way believe so.

The following is from an article written by LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He is serving in Iraq right now. He is experiencing the events in Iraq first hand. And he disagrees with mainstream media and how they are reporting how the events unfold in Iraq.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.

More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True — yes, accurate — yes, but in context with the greater good taking place — no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes.

The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80 percent from late October — before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting.

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Such perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia — Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities even happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance — they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?

believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms — how convenient.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.

So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these "experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Tzu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's progress.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers in the end.

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it."

Full Article Here : READ ME (http://worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html)

KevinBrowning
January 31st, 2005, 04:44 PM
People love to whine and naysay, even when we are clearly in no conceivable danger of losing. Afghanistan went very well, and now surprise, Iraq is coming along slowly but surely also. There is something about making one's own choices that people seem to like, once they have experienced it. Unless one is of the sensitive and cultured belief that those Arabs just do not want democracy forced upon them. Talk about an oxymoron.

Fyshhed
January 31st, 2005, 09:44 PM
In a surprising turn of events, I happen to agree with this sentiment against privatized media. However, it unfortunately encompasses far more than just the media; political groups and propaganda machines for any side of a conflict are constantly churning away at "facts" and facts to present the desired image.

The real problem is not the media that feeds the cattle population. The problem is that the population is cattle to be fed. The alternative to a privatized media is a government media. I think not! Restrictions on news to force neutrality can be exceedingly difficult. What defines neutrality?

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 01:58 AM
The problem is that the population is cattle to be fed.

Sure, blame the victim.

Also, I have no problem with biased news reporting. The problem that I have with MSM is that they claim to be neutral and objective, while their actual reporting is skewed to the mid-to-far left.

mog
February 1st, 2005, 02:23 AM
What exactly constitutes the "Liberal" media in question? Is there any one left wing equivalent of Fox News that is outstanding in it's bias?

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 02:38 AM
Is there any one left wing equivalent of Fox News that is outstanding in it's bias?

They wouldn't admit their bias, but here's a partial list: New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, ABC news, NBC News, BBC News, and the L.A. Times, just off the top of my head.

mog
February 1st, 2005, 02:59 AM
They wouldn't admit their bias, but here's a partial list: New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, ABC news, NBC News, BBC News, and the L.A. Times, just off the top of my head.

The only one I am familiar with is the BBC. Do you have any examples of bias, or can you recall any incident you felt the BBC did not adequately cover?

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 03:25 AM
The only one I am familiar with is the BBC. Do you have any examples of bias, or can you recall any incident you felt the BBC did not adequately cover?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003982.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/004013.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003699.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003821.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003497.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/002984.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003268.php

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/005853.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003501.php



Some of these are partially redundant. They're also all from the same blog, because I'm too lazy to track back all of the blog posts that I've ever read about BBC bias. Just type in "BBC bias site:www.instapundit.com", or "BBC bias site:www.littlegreenfootballs.com".

Fyshhed
February 1st, 2005, 03:32 AM
Sure, blame the victim.
Such a painful concept, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this is not the case (at least partially) for so many things. If the people did not eat this kind of stuff up, then politicians' and media's shenannigans would be nowhere as effective at distorting reality to get popularity.

Zhavric
February 1st, 2005, 03:56 AM
From Foxnews.com (the most non-liberal news source there is...)

Terrorists Claim Four Iraqi Hostages (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145971,00.html)

Investigator: $9B Missing in Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145848,00.html)

Crash Biggest U.K. Loss of War (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145864,00.html)

From cnn.com (often called the "Clinton News Network" back in the 90's for its alleged liberal slant)

Jordan's Abdullah: Iraq election sets 'good tone' (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/31/jordan.iraq/index.html)

Iraq's mark of freedom: Ink stains (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.voter.reax/index.html)

Allawi urges unity after Iraq vote (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/31/iraq.main/index.html)



Another issue to consider, 'pok, is that when 30 American soldiers die in one day on Iraqi soil... that's newworthy. It's not good news, but it's news. If 30 people die in a helicopter crash in my city, it's going to make the local, if not national news.

Methinks your attitude is a bit alarmist. Aren't you a bit guilty of the "knee-jerk" reaction that most liberals are usually accused of?

Zhavric
February 1st, 2005, 04:03 AM
What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Well, we already have el presidente to tell us how "evil" they are.

I find the rest of this paragraph ironic. The fact that the author is writing about the C.A.R.E. victim is proof that it made the news. The author (not sure if it's Apok or from the article) makes it sound like some big secret or that an American marine shooting a man on the ground was the only news story from Iraq to get air time.

You claim to want fair and impartial reporting... but at the same time, it sounds like you want the media to portray Americans as the "good guys" and inurgents as the "bad guys". How exactly is that fair and impartial?

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 04:15 AM
You claim to want fair and impartial reporting... but at the same time, it sounds like you want the media to portray Americans as the "good guys" and in[s]urgents as the "bad guys". How exactly is that fair and impartial?

Calling them "insurgents" instead of "terrorists" is an interesting choice, don't you think? I'd settle for the media stopping their portrayal of "insurgents"/killers as "minute men", courageously fighting against the American tyran- wait, no, "occupying force". Do you actually think that the MSM is giving us the good news from Iraq? Do you actually think that their reports have the correct proportion to the actual good events vs. bad events in Iraq? I'm surprised that you read so few blogs.

Oh, and your three stories from CNN: there are some things that can't be spun to the liberal view w/o being blatantly anti-American, such as the Iraq elections. Notice how the lefty bloggers are quieting down now, instead of joyously proclaiming the spead of democracy (they are DEMOCRATS, after all!)?

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 04:24 AM
Here's some interesting tidbits:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/fox_news_wipes_out_us_competition_including_cnn/

" Fox News Channel ("FNC" in the stats) dominates massively. But what I find most amusing is that a joker, a comedian, a “pretend” news anchor, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”, beats all of CNN’s big-time-star ("serious") news anchors. That’s gotta hurt.

CABLE NEWS RACE
MON, JAN. 24, 2005

FNC O’REILLY 2,643,000 [VIEWERS]
CNN LARRY KING 2,474,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,800,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,604,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,446,000
FNC GRETA 1,390,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,341,000
CNN AARON BROWN 1,058,000
CNN ZAHN 837,000
CNN COOPER 506,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 454,000
CNN DOBBS 451,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 340,000
MNSBC SCARBOROUGH 335,000
CNBC DENNIS MILLER 81,000

...And I almost forgot to mention that Fox News Channel is no longer banned by the state-censor and regulator in Canada (the CRTC division of the Liberal Party) and is available to Rogers Cable, Shaw Cable, and Star*Choice subscribers. Fox News Channels actually allows conservatives’ thoughts to leak out into society unmocked. Check it out! It’s really quite astonishing. "

And from the same site:

" Fox News Unbanned!

Recently unbanned by Canada's state censor, the CRTC, Fox News Channel is now available even outside of Parliament Hill in Canada on Rogers Cable, Shaw Cable, Cogeco Cable, and Star*Choice. I highly recommend Fox News Channel to all Canadians. Fox News Channel allows conservatives to say things publicly! They often don’t even ridicule or mock conservatives or their ideas. And they sometimes present views that are critical of the liberal-left! It’s really quite astonishing, and it's a completely new thing for Canadians. Try it! "

Is Fox all that conservative/"neo-con"/"Christian Extreme Right"/"gun-nut" (or whatever term is used to denote anything right-of-center), or is it moderate? It is right of CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC, for sure, but how far right is it of the center?

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 04:27 AM
Such a painful concept, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this is not the case (at least partially) for so many things. If the people did not eat this kind of stuff up, then politicians' and media's shenannigans would be nowhere as effective at distorting reality to get popularity.

Yeah, the masses are partly to blame. However, I place the overwhelming majority of the blame on the people intentionally decieving the masses and presenting half-truths and whole lies. The fact that people fall for CBS's schtick is bad, but the fact that CBS tries to push this junk, while claiming to be unbiased, is much worse.

mog
February 1st, 2005, 04:45 AM
Is Fox all that conservative/"neo-con"/"Christian Extreme Right"/"gun-nut" (or whatever term is used to denote anything right-of-center), or is it moderate? It is right of CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC, for sure, but how far right is it of the center?

I think what Fox broadcasts is best described as pseudo-news. On FNC editorial and reporting blend together seamlessly. Instructions are sent down from above outlining what editorial lines are to be taken for the day, and even in one case exactly what parts of John Kerry's upcoming speech were to be shown and which were to be ignored. Fox reporters simply fill in pre-fabricated frameworks in a sort of unique faux journalism.

I am so fascinated by the brilliance of it all that I watch far more FNC than any other TV news. Of all his empire, FNC is the pinnacle of Rupert Murdoch's diabolical genius.

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 04:51 AM
It's things like this (http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/004697.html) from the MSM that irk me.

Onto mog's comments:



I think what Fox broadcasts is best described as pseudo-news. On FNC editorial and reporting blend together seamlessly. Instructions are sent down from above outlining what editorial lines are to be taken for the day, and even in one case exactly what parts of John Kerry's upcoming speech were to be shown and which were to be ignored. Fox reporters simply fill in pre-fabricated frameworks in a sort of unique faux journalism.

I don't see how Fox's reporting is any more slanted than the BBC's. Also, there ARE editorialists (e.g., Bill O'Reilly) on FNC, but are the actual news reports biased? And I suppose Dan Rather and Peter Jennings don't engage in editorializing, ever, right?

Zhavric
February 1st, 2005, 05:15 AM
Ultimately, Clive, you just go on believing what you want to believe. CBS's story about Bush? Clearly a conspiracy drawn up to make the president look bad... but mismatched exit polls in a presidential election? That's just conspiracy theory (unless it's in Ukraine). It would be nice if the right could level skepticism evenly at itself.

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 05:29 AM
It would be nice if the right could level skepticism evenly at itself.

You actually think that the exit polls were more accurate than the final count?

Why don't you read up on some, you know, ACTUAL facts:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-19-exit-polls-usat_x.htm

And that CBS story was exactly that: a story, a fiction. But I guess you're still waiting for Dan to break the story, right?

Zhavric
February 1st, 2005, 06:30 AM
You actually think that the exit polls were more accurate than the final count?

Why don't you read up on some, you know, ACTUAL facts:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-19-exit-polls-usat_x.htm

Exit poll discrepencies were the reason for the recent hoopla in the Ukraine. There's it's a victory for democracy. Here it's "conspiracy theory".


And that CBS story was exactly that: a story, a fiction. But I guess you're still waiting for Dan to break the story, right?

No. I'm waiting for you to point that skepticism at your own doctrines, at your own leaders, and at your own rhetoric. You follow the beat of your leaders without question or concern because they can do no wrong in your eyes and anyone who says otherwise is just a liberal with a conspiracy theory. Wake up and start taking a look at your own corner, Clive.

CliveStaples
February 1st, 2005, 07:10 AM
Exit poll discrepencies were the reason for the recent hoopla in te Ukraine. There's it's a victory for democracy. Here it's "conspiracy theory".

Well, people looked into the hoopla here and found that it was the exit polls that were wrong, not the actual outcome.



No. I'm waiting for you to point that skepticism at your own doctrines, at your own leaders, and at your own rhetoric. You follow the beat of your leaders without question or concern because they can do no wrong in your eyes and anyone who says otherwise is just a liberal with a conspiracy theory. Wake up and start taking a look at your own corner, Clive.

Okay, first: If I ever meet your parents, I won't do them the pleasure of introducing them to each other. I have plenty of criticisms of my leader and of the Republican party, Conservatism, and my church. I don't dismiss out of hand everybody who disagrees with me. I don't follow my leaders blindly, Zhavric. I make reasoned decisions. Just because I support President Bush and the war effort in Iraq doesn't mean that I'm some un-thinking sycophant of the Republican party.

"Wake up and start taking a look at your own corner, Clive." Yes, the reason that I agree with the Republicans is because I haven't looked at their platform. It couldn't possibly be that I arrived at my position through reason! It couldn't possibly be that reasonably minds may differ!

Apokalupsis
February 1st, 2005, 09:25 AM
Another issue to consider, 'pok, is that when 30 American soldiers die in one day on Iraqi soil... that's newworthy. It's not good news, but it's news. If 30 people die in a helicopter crash in my city, it's going to make the local, if not national news.
Reread the first post. You shouldn't respond unless you understand what the op says. And you could not have made this statement w/o understanding the point of the article.



Methinks your attitude is a bit alarmist. Aren't you a bit guilty of the "knee-jerk" reaction that most liberals are usually accused of?
No. Reread the article.

Pibs
February 1st, 2005, 09:25 AM
Oh yes, don't forget the good news guys, we killed lots of people!

Spare me such good news.. and frankly it's revolting when Republicans politely explain that war is hell - we KNOW, that's why it should be avoided, not jumped in with both feet on the basis of blatant lies. As for the C.A.R.E worker, try reading up on it and see what conclusions you come to.

P.

Apokalupsis
February 1st, 2005, 09:27 AM
You claim to want fair and impartial reporting... but at the same time, it sounds like you want the media to portray Americans as the "good guys" and inurgents as the "bad guys". How exactly is that fair and impartial?
No one claimed that Americans should be portrayed in a manner in which they are not. What is argued is that the events in Iraq BE reported, and not selectively reported. When this happens, the media is GUILTY of distorting the truth. And when that happens, people form opinions and take sides due to faulty data (or distorted truth).

Apokalupsis
February 1st, 2005, 09:32 AM
Oh yes, don't forget the good news guys, we killed lots of people!
Is this the typical thought process of a Democrat?

The GOOD NEWS is it isn't as bad as the anti-war crowd wants us all to beleive. Don't follwo the path of a lemming, don't follow because "it's cool". Seek the truth, you'll feel much better. ;)



Spare me such good news.. and frankly it's revolting when Republicans politely explain that war is hell - we KNOW, that's why it should be avoided, not jumped in with both feet on the basis of blatant lies.
OFF-TOPIC.


As for the C.A.R.E worker, try reading up on it and see what conclusions you come to.
P.
That the media is selective on what it reports?

Apokalupsis
February 1st, 2005, 09:34 AM
This thread is not about "Fox vs CNN", it is about the war NOT going nearly as badly as what the mainstream press leads its "subscribers" to believe. It's about events NOT being what YOU (the anti-free Iraq crowd) want the rest of the world to believe. It's about the truth of events that actually occur, and the distortion of those events to further agenda or bias.

Zhavric
February 1st, 2005, 09:54 AM
What do you propose to be the answer, Apok? Capitalism has to rear it's ugly head here.

Station 1: During prime time plays a story about Iraq in general and reports on the good and the bad equally.

Station 2: At the same time slot as station 1's Iraq story, station 2 plays a piece about 30 soldiers who died and says nothing about what is going on in the rest of Iraq.

Station 2 gets more viewers. Station 2, therefor, gets more people who want to purchase their ad time. Soon, no one watches station 1... or station 1 competes with station 2 by altering its' programming.

So what's the alternative? State controlled media? Boycotts? I'm all ears.

Pibs
February 1st, 2005, 10:16 AM
Calm down, calm down, before you go dropping napalm on people or something. OK, let's look at some of that selective reporting..

Margaret Hassan's Suspected Execution Will Be Seen As 'Proof' of Evil
by Robert Fisk

After the grief, the astonishment, heartbreak, anger and fury over the apparent murder of such a good and saintly woman, that is the question her friends - and, quite possibly, the Iraqi insurgents - will be asking.

This Anglo-Irish woman held an Iraqi passport. She had lived in Iraq for 30 years, she had dedicated her life to the welfare of Iraqis in need.

She hated the United Nations sanctions and opposed the Anglo-American invasion.

So who killed Margaret Hassan?

Of course, those of us who knew her will reflect on the appalling implications of the videotape (sent to Al Jazeera yesterday and apparently showing her execution).

Her husband believes it is evidence of her death.

If Margaret Hassan can be kidnapped and murdered, how much further can we fall into the Iraqi pit?

There are no barriers, no frontiers of immorality left. What price is innocence now worth in the anarchy that we have brought to Iraq? The answer is simple: nothing.

I remember Margaret arguing with doctors and truck drivers over a lorry-load of medicines for Iraq's children's cancer wards in 1998. She smiled, cajoled and pleaded to get these leukaemia drugs to Basra and Mosul.

She would not have wished to be called an angel - Margaret didn't like clichés. Even now I want to write "doesn't like clichés". Are we really permitted to say that she is dead?

For the bureaucrats and the Western leaders who today will express their outrage and sorrow at her reported death, she had nothing but scorn.

Yes, she knew the risks. Margaret Hassan was well aware that many Iraqi women had been kidnapped, raped, ransomed or murdered by the Baghdad mafia.

Because she is a Western woman - the first to be abducted and apparently murdered - we forget how many Iraqi women have already suffered this terrible fate; largely unreported in a world which counts dead American soldiers but ignores the fatalities among those with darker skins and browner eyes and a different religion, whom we claimed to have liberated.

And now let's remember the other, earlier videos. Margaret Hassan crying. Margaret Hassan fainting, Margaret Hassan having water thrown over her face to revive her, Margaret Hassan crying again, pleading for the withdrawal of the Black Watch regiment from the Euphrates River.

In the background of these appalling pictures, there were none of the usual Islamic banners. There were none of the usual armed and hooded men. There were no Qur'anic recitations.

And when it percolated through to Fallujah and Ramadi that the mere act of kidnapping Hassan was close to heresy, the combined resistance groups of Fallujah - and the message genuinely came from them - demanded her release.

So, incredibly, did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda man whom the Americans falsely claimed was leading the Iraqi insurrection, but who has definitely been involved in the kidnappings and beheadings.

Other abducted women were freed when their captors recognised their innocence.

But not Margaret Hassan, even though she spoke fluent Arabic and could explain her work to her captors in their own language.

If anyone doubted the murderous nature of the insurgents, what better way to prove their viciousness than to produce evidence of Margaret Hassan's murder?

What more ruthless way could there be of demonstrating to the world that the US and Interim Prime Minister Iyad Alawi's tinpot army were fighting "evil" in Fallujah and the other Iraqi cities?

Even in the topsy-turvy world of Iraq, nobody is suggesting that people associated with the government of Mr Allawi had a hand in Margaret Hassan's death. Iraq, after all, is awash with up to 20 insurgent groups but also with rival gangs of criminals seeking to extort money from hostage-taking.

But still the question has to be answered: who killed Margaret Hassan?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1117-29.htm

Mmmm.

Yeah, the Western media did rather drop the story quickly didn't they? As for the rest of the post, tis laughable. Watch:

Hahahahahah!

See?


P.

Slipnish
February 1st, 2005, 10:20 AM
Zhav makes an interesting point, and from my own humble viewpoint, I believe, as usual, that Americans in general are to blame. The solid truth is, 23 Americans being killed is far more important to us than 2,300 insurgents being killed, unless you have a video of the 2,300 falling in a hail of bullets or something.

We EXPECT the troops to kill off those guys in huge body counts, so I don't think there is as much interest there in the public in general. We know our troops are better trained, better armored, and better at their craft than that pack of sand dwelling, towel wearing, homicidal, Allah screaming bunch of camel jockeys could ever be.

Sorry Apok, but screaming, "The sky is blue!" isn't news. It just isn't. What people respond to is visceral sensation. The fact that Americans are dying brings out the War Path in all but the most pacifistic among us. We just can't work up a lot of interest in insurgents dying, pieces of a city being taken by coalition troops, or soldiers capturing 8 gazillion rocket launchers in a mosque. It doesn't provide that grab your guts and twist sensation....unfortunately.

Most American newspapers are written on about a 7th grade level, or so I have heard. I am sure the average American has no concept of how important some of the points the author made are in terms of warfare. And furthermore, as Zhav pointed out, in an industry fueled by ratings, people getting blown up, is far better TV than Americans take over another city block in Camel Jockey City....

As a nation, we are powerfully stupid at times. We want our news in bytes. We want to live next door to Wal Mart. And we don't take the time to research things on our own, by and large.

For those of you who read this, think about it like this. Where I work there are several ladies who would respond to this article with a, "Hmmm. That's interesting." today, and go right back to being entirely indignant about another American soldier dying tomorrow. They simply are NOT capable of assimilating this information as important.

How many of you know people like that? I am sure you know more than a few Apok, as do most of the posters here. One of the reasons this community comes here is to escape from the drab, baseless, overly dramatized, underintellectualized public we are forced to deal with, and have some actual intellectual debate. Heavy emphasis on the INTELLECTUAL.

We may not agree, but I doubt that anyone here is not able to understand the importance of the writers statements.

So, to sum it all up: Put the blame where it belongs. The republicans! :)

Zhavric
February 1st, 2005, 10:43 AM
So, to sum it all up: Put the blame where it belongs. The republicans! :)

Slipnish for teh win.

FruitandNut
February 1st, 2005, 12:21 PM
I don't think it is the liberal element that are doing the dirty on the troops or Iraqis' disappearing $ billions. 'Apres moi la deluge' (motto of the old RAF Bomber Command.)

I was going to comment on Haliburton deals, but that might be considered an attack from a 'pinko'.
Instead, I will sing their praises.
-Hey you guys, did you know that Haliburton are concerned about the forests? They appear to be sparing a lot trees, by saving on the usual paperwork in many of their deals

Apokalupsis
February 1st, 2005, 02:03 PM
So what's the alternative? State controlled media? Boycotts? I'm all ears.
Accurate reporting of events, both good and bad.

Snoop
February 1st, 2005, 02:13 PM
Liberal Media distorts Iraq War I absolutely agree. Case closed.

Next scnerio: Reactionary Media distorts Iraq War - again I absolutely agree. You love to draw lines apok - where is the line between fair and accurate and unfair and unaccurate? The line is called truth. Thank you.

Apokalupsis
February 1st, 2005, 02:15 PM
Zhav makes an interesting point, and from my own humble viewpoint, I believe, as usual, that Americans in general are to blame. The solid truth is, 23 Americans being killed is far more important to us than 2,300 insurgents being killed, unless you have a video of the 2,300 falling in a hail of bullets or something.
Then you argue that the media has no responsibility to report truth, and instead should just seek to earn as much money as possible?

Also, 100% of all liberals who have posted in this thread, have missed the POINT of it. And I seriously doubt that any have read the article written by the actively deployed Captain.

In the States here (and elsewhere) we are led to believe that we are "losing" the war in Iraq. That our troops are getting slaughtered. That their resolve is quickly draining. That we are committing great acts of inhumanity. That the resistence is only growing.

THAT is the picture painted by the meida, and THAT is what is swallowed by liberals and the majority of the Democratic party w/o question.

When in fact, the opposite is true. Once again, Dems are on the wrong side of history. Thankfully, there are those who supported the big picture, and the war efforts, and Iraq is now experiencing a free election.

Continue being a follower and never questioning "what is", there will be those of us who pursue the truth and act on it and ALLOW you to have the ease of comfort that is your alternate reality of the way the world "really is". ;)

Snoop
February 1st, 2005, 02:26 PM
the way the world "really is". I wish I was as sure of reality as you were - one of us is delusional.

Booger
February 1st, 2005, 03:03 PM
Accurate reporting of events, both good and bad.

So where's your "rant" about pictures of the devastation that "shock and awe" visited upon the Iraqi people not being broadcast on the 5:00 news by the "liberal" media? Where's your rant about no pictures being made available by Tom Brokaw showing Iraqi childrens' heads split open after a US bombing attack? Where's your rant about not enough stories about the absue inflicted upon Iraqi citizens by soldiers who are ill-equipped for police duty? Where's your rant about the Pentagon not allowing the "liberal" media to show pictures of coffins returning from Iraq?


We don't hear about the dispicable acts that the insurgents are guilty of.

??? A day doesn't go by where we don't hear a story about a suicide bomber or a road-side bomb attack. Each kidnapping and beheading is also reported on. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.


The following is from an article written by LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He is serving in Iraq right now. He is experiencing the events in Iraq first hand. And he disagrees with mainstream media and how they are reporting how the events unfold in Iraq.

So what? This is one soldier's point of view. From this one op-ed you craft a somewhat specious argument that the "liberal" media is to blame for "gross distortions" of the reality on the ground in Iraq?

Also, you fail to address the nature of news coverage in the United States in general. If firefighters come to Polly's house to rescue her cat, you're not going to see it on the news. But if those same firefighters are accused of sexually assaulting Polly, you're going to hear about it. Likewise, if US soldiers restore water service in Basra, the liklihood of you seeing it on the news is slim. But if those same soldiers restore water service and then are attacked by insurgents and a few are killed, 5:00 news.


It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view.

If the "broader truth" lies outside their view, how then is the media purposefully distorting events in Iraq? What would you like to see, the NYTimes say, "45 were killed in a roadside bomb in Baghdad today, but in other parts of the country where journalists won't venture, we have been told that things are A-OK."


There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day.

No good news? Even a cursory review of CNN's website belies this notion:

Jordan's Abdullah: Iraq election sets 'good tone' (02.01.2005)
The Iraqi elections helped send a signal to the entire Arab world that democratic reforms are necessary, Jordan's King Abdullah II said Monday.

Allawi urges unity after Iraq vote (01.31.2005)
Iraqi leaders turned their focus Monday to the long process of building a representative, democratic government -- with Sunday's election providing a newfound sense of optimism in parts of the country.

Our pride, by first Iraqis to vote (01.31.2005)
In Syria on Friday, an Iraqi expatriate, voting in the nation's first free elections in more than half a century, said he felt "as if I've just been born."

Bush hails Iraqi election as 'resounding success' (01.31.2005)
President Bush called the Iraqi election a "resounding success" and promised that the United States will help Iraqis fight continuing insurgency as they build a democratic government.

World leaders praise voter courage (01.30.2005)
Leaders around the globe have praised the courage of ordinary Iraqis in turning out to vote in the face of threats of violence and retribution.

Arraf: Iraqis have dreamed of this day (01.30.2005)
Iraqis went to the polls Sunday to vote in the first free election the country has seen in a half-century. Jane Arraf was at a polling center in Baquba.

Iraq's mark of freedom: Ink stains (01.30.2005)
An Iraqi man named Saad proudly displayed his ink-stained finger on Sunday, after defying terrorist threats and voting in Iraq's first free election in half a century.

Democrats praise Iraq's elections (01.29.2005)
Democrats praised Iraq's nationwide elections as "a great day for many."

Iraqis dance for joy in Nashville (01.29.2005)
Abdul al-Najr woke up early Saturday with his wife, piled into a car with three friends and drove 250 miles from St. Louis to the polling place here, where jubilant Iraqis danced and held hands in the steady, cold rain.

Iraqis worldwide celebrate landmark vote (01.28.2005)
"I feel as if I've just been born"; "It was the best thing I have actually ever done in my life"; "This is just like a dream."

Democracy finds hope in Iraqi town (01.25.2005)
The concept of democracy appears to have taken root in the dusty town of Karma, a predominantly Sunni community of 75,000 people about nine miles (15 kilometers) northeast of Falluja.

Allies praise Bush's freedom call (01.21.2005)
As George W. Bush was sworn in for a second term as U.S. president, his closest political allies around the world moved to congratulate him.


Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine.

Al Jazeera part of the "liberal media"?

mog
February 1st, 2005, 03:18 PM
I don't see how Fox's reporting is any more slanted than the BBC's. Also, there ARE editorialists (e.g., Bill O'Reilly) on FNC, but are the actual news reports biased? And I suppose Dan Rather and Peter Jennings don't engage in editorializing, ever, right?

While Fox openly admits that it is motivated by a desire to correct the left wing bias in the mainstream US media, the BBC has no such agenda. While there certainly have been instances of bias, like that investigated by the Hutton Inquiry, no evidence of institutional bias has been presented. Like any media organisation, the BBC's editors, producers and reporters make mistakes, often attributable to the snap decisions that are required of journalists running a worldwide, live, round the clock service.

Regarding the Iraq war, I have no doubt that the left wing media are distorting the facts - they wouldn't be partisan if they weren't. However, on the Iraq issue at least, I don't believe the BBC belongs to that group.

Booger
February 1st, 2005, 03:29 PM
Also, 100% of all liberals who have posted in this thread, have missed the POINT of it. And I seriously doubt that any have read the article written by the actively deployed Captain.

Have you read this letter from the "actively deployed":

"I am a soldier currently on active duty and my husband is a member of the Reserves and has been activated since Feb. 13, and is currently in Iraq, supporting the 4th ID, where he's been since April. We were both deployed at the same time. I was fortunate enough to have my unit return earlier this summer.

"Some of the conditions I experienced over there were deplorable. It sickens me every time I see news articles quoting dignitaries coming from there saying, "The soldiers are in good spirits," "Morale is high." I'm here to tell you, it's all lies. Morale is at an all-time low. Soldiers are hating life there, so much so, some are taking their own lives rather than deal with the situation. It has become that drastic.

"Now, I've found out that my husband may be extended until this summer. To add insult to injury, his pay will be reduced as of Oct. 1 because combat pay and family separation is being cut in half.

"I have nightmares about horrific things happening to him. What makes it worse is that I know what's going on in Iraq and what the "real" conditions and threat levels are, because I was there. So to all you family members who have no clue, consider yourself blessed. I think I'd be better off not knowing.

"I panic every time my doorbell is rang. Every time the phone rings and it's a number I can't identify, I'm afraid to answer. If my commander wants to see me for some reason, my heart beats fast, because I'm wonder if he has to tell me something has happened to my husband.

"I love my country. I am all for fighting for my country and my people. I don't understand fighting for a people who have made it abundantly clear that they do not want us there. They do not want our help. They do not wish to become Westernized. When they see us, they shoot at us.

"As much as I love the military, when this enlistment is up, I'm running so fast for the civilian border as is my husband.

"At this point, when it is time for reelection, I would vote for anyone whose last name wasn't Bush. I know he is my commander in chief, but I feel what he's doing right now is unlawful.

"My husband and I have decided not to have children. We are afraid that something that we've been exposed to in Iraq may cause birth defects. This whole war has turned my life upside down and is even affecting my life, years into the future.

"Now, I just pray everyday for my husband's safe return soon. The safe return of all the soldiers."


THAT is the picture painted by the meida, and THAT is what is swallowed by liberals and the majority of the Democratic party w/o question. When in fact, the opposite is true.

This is nothing more than personal bias. Truth be told, you don't know more about what is going on in Iraq than you learn from the "media" (and, of course, one letter from an American soldier).

Consider some current views on Iraq:

I. POLICY AND FORMER ADMINISTRATION VIEWS

Scowcroft: Skeptical Vote Will Stabilize Iraq, The Washington Post, 1/7/05
Brent Scowcroft was the national security adviser for President George H.W. Bush, former chairman of the President's (G. W. Bush) Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and is a leading figure in U.S. foreign policy. He states, "A roadmap is only useful if you know where you are…We’re not used to long term strategic thinking…The Iraqi elections, rather than turning out to be a promising turning point, have the great potential for deepening the conflict." (New America Foundation luncheon, 1/6/05).

“[Scowcroft] said he expects increased divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims after the Jan. 30 elections… The best hope for pulling the country from chaos would be to turn the U.S. operation over to NATO or the United Nations. Scowcroft said the continued U.S. presence in Iraq is inflaming the Middle East, hurting the U.S. war on terrorism.” (Dana Priest, “Friends of Bush Family Joins Pessimists,” 1/7/05)

Brzezinski: Skeptical Vote Will Stabilize Iraq, The Washington Post 1/7/05
Zbigniew Brzezinski was President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. "I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we're in now," Brzezinski said. "If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated." Brzezinski said it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion and resumption of the military draft to ensure adequate security in Iraq.

Kemp: President Must Define Endgame, The Washington Post, 1/7/05
Geoffrey Kemp was President Reagan’s National Security Council director on Near East affairs. "There is an exit strategy that does not have to be disastrous provided that Iraq doesn't descend into anarchy and chaos," Geoffrey Kemp said. "But what the president has to do is prepare the American people for a definition of winning that is clearly far less grandiose than the anticipated outcome when Saddam's statue was toppled."

Cordesman: We’re Not Winning in a Decisive Way, Washington Post, 1/7/04
Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official, is now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's not dire," Cordesman said, ". . . but day after day we are not winning in a decisive way…It's very obvious that we are not in control.”

II. SECURITY AND MILITARY VIEWS.

Nash: Time for Substantial Reduction of U.S. Troops, Boston Globe, 11/22/04
Retired Army Major General William Nash, is the former NATO commander in Bosnia., “I resigned from the ‘we don’t have enough troops in Iraq’ club four months ago. We have too many now,”[he said.] “Nash, who supported Hussein’s ouster, said a substantial reduction after the Iraqi elections in January ‘would be a wise and judicious move’ to concentrate their energies on border operations. He added, ‘The absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence.’ ”

Vickers: U.S. Presence Fuels Iraqi Insurgency, Boston Globe, 11/22/04“Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraqi insurgency as much as it has suppressed it,” said Michael Vickers, a conservative-leaning Pentagon consultant and long time senior CIA official who supported the war.”

Outgoing CIA chief: Iraq Situation Deteriorating, New York Times, 12/7/04
“A classified cable sent by the Central Intelligence Agency’s station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials…They said it warned that the security situation was likely to get worse, including more violence and sectarian clashes, unless there were marked improvements soon on the part of the Iraqi government, in terms of its ability to assert authority and to build the economy.”

Pfaltzgraff: Reduce U.S. Troops in Iraq, Boston Globe, 11/22/04
“I have seen a metamorphosis,” said Robert Pfaltzgraff, president of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Cambridge and a vocal supporter of Bush’s Iraq policy, referring to debate both inside and outside the halls of government. “We should not be there with a large force. We should be there with a force that begins to quickly diminish.”

Odom: Withdraw the only way out, Council on Foreign Relations, 5/6/04
William Odom is a retired Army general and former director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan. "Iraqi anger at U.S. troop presence and the systemic murder and torture of innocent Iraqis has spun irretrievably out of control. The only way out is immediate withdrawal. Once you've done a stupid thing you don't fix it by keeping at it. The only question is how long we're going to wait to leave and what price we'll pay if we try to stay," Odom said.

“President Bush should ‘eat a little humble pie,’ admit the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and seek U.N. forces to take over for U.S. troops. Odom, who opposed the war before it began, argues that Iraq will never become a liberal democracy. He also warns that ‘we've also nearly broken the U.S. Army by over-extension and over-commitment.’ ”

Lt. Gen. Helmly: Army Reserve Overextended Because of “Dysfunctional Policies,” Baltimore Sun, 1/5/05 “Lt. Gen. James "Ron" Helmly is the chief of the Army Reserve. In a blunt and detailed memo he cited the demands of overseas commitments and the unwillingness of Army and Pentagon officials to change ‘dysfunctional’ policies that are hampering the Army Reserve on issues ranging from training and extension of service time to the mobilization of his soldiers. The Dec. 20 memo, said that in meeting the ‘current demands’ of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army Reserve is in ‘grave danger’ of being unable to meet other missions in Pentagon contingency plans or help with domestic emergencies ‘and is rapidly degenerating into a broken force.’ ”

Baker: Phased Withdrawal of Troops Needed, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/14/05
James Baker was Secretary of State to George H.W. Bush and a lead architect of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. “Any appearance of a permanent occupation will both undermine domestic support here in the United States and play directly into the hands of those in the Middle East who -- however wrongly -- suspect us of imperial design. A public announcement of some kind of gradual withdrawal agreement could give the new government much-needed legitimacy in the eyes of everyday Iraqis,” Baker said. Mark Juergensmeyer, director of global and international studies and professor of sociology and religious studies at UC Santa Barbara adds, “There needs to be some symbolic show of America's will to get out of there and give authority to the new Iraqi government. If we don't, that government is doomed."

III. THINK TANKS AND SCHOLARS.

Cordesman: The Developing Insurgency, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 12/27/04
Anthony Cordesman is a former Pentagon official and now senior fellow at CSIS. “The lack of highly visible Iraqi forces, and the fact that U.S. occupiers have both won virtually every such victory and still dominate most security activity have also reinforced the image of a nation where fighting is done by foreigners, non-Muslims, and occupiers. The end result has been that many Coalition and Iraqi interim Government tactical victories produce a costly political and military backlash…U.S and Coalition-dominated actions are seen as actions by ‘occupie’ forces; they are a source of constant propaganda and fuel conspiracy theories…It is clear that even the segments of Iraqi society that tolerate Coalition forces as a necessity today want them out as quickly as is practical.”

Cordesman: “Iraq- Playing the Course: A Strategy for Reshaping U.S. Policy in Iraq and the Middle East,” CSIS, 12/9/04 “The US faces too much Iraqi anger and resentment to try to hold on in the face of clear failure, and achieving any lasting success in terms of Iraqi political acceptance means the US must seek to largely withdraw over the next two years.”

Weyrich: War Hurts U.S. Interests, New York Times 11/7/04
Paul Weyrich is the founder of the Heritage Foundation and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation. “The consequences of the neocons’ adventure in Iraq are now all too clear,” he said. “America is stuck in a guerrilla war with no end in sight. Our military is stretched too thin to respond to other threats. And our real enemies, non-state organizations such as Al Qaeda, are benefiting from the Arab and Islamic backlash against our occupation of an Islamic country.”

CATO Report: “Exiting Iraq: Why the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War Against Al Qaeda.” Chris Preble, 2004. “The end of the foreign occupation will seriously undermine the terrorists’ claims that their acts of violence against Iraqis are somehow serving the interests of Iraq…The occupation is counterproductive in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists and actually increases support for Osama bin Laden in Muslim communities not previously disposed to support his radical interpretation of Islam.”

The International Crisis Group(ICG): “What Can the U.S. Do in Iraq?” 12/22/04 “A prerequisite [to stability in Iraq] is to agree on and articulate clear goals and the position [the U.S.] wants to be in by late 2005 (the point at which the transitional process is to end)— in particular the scope of the political and, any, military role the U.S. will still want to play. In the absence of a public statement of goals, both Iraqi and non-Iraqi actors have projected their worst—and often contradictory—fears upon the U.S. enterprise…What is now required is dual disengagement: a gradual U.S. political and military disengagement from Iraq and, no less important, a clear Iraqi political disengagement from the U.S.
“[The U.S. should] change Iraqi perceptions of U.S. by entering into transparent negotiations with the Iraqi government over the timetable for a staged withdrawal, including a target date for complete removal of all U.S. troops, and repudiating publicly and unequivocally and intention of establishing long-term military bases.
“The belief among large numbers of Iraqis that the U.S. is determined to remain in Iraq, shape its policies, manipulate its politics and exploit its resources is all the more rampant in the absence of credible statements of U.S. goals and of visible steps to demonstrate their sincerity. The U.S. should make it absolutely clear that it has not intention of seeking long-term bases in Iraq.”

Foreign Affairs: “Iraq: Winning the Unwinnable War,” 1/2/05 “The beginning of wisdom is to recognize that the ongoing war in Iraq is not one that the United States can win. As a result of its initial miscalculations, misdirected planning, and inadequate preparation, Washington has lost the Iraqi people’s confidence and consent, and it is unlikely to win them back. Every day that Americans shell Iraqi cities they lose further ground on the central front of Iraqi opinion....Only by dramatically recasting the American role in the region can such perceptions begin to be helping neighboring populations, and encouraging international cooperation… Washington should establish that its ultimate goal is the complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces as soon as circumstances permit and that it has no intention of seeking a permanent military presence in the country.”

Over 650 U.S. Scholars Give Bush Foreign Policy a Failing Grade, Letter to the President, 10/12/04
"Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy," a nonpartisan group of experts in the field of national security and international politics (including six of the last seven Presidents of the American Political Science Association) signed an open letter opposing the Bush administration's foreign policy and calling urgently for a change of course stating that current U.S. foreign policy harms the struggle against Islamist terrorists, pointing to a series of "blunders" by the Bush team in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. "It is telling that so many specialists on international relations, who rarely agree on anything, are unified in their position on the high costs that the U.S. is incurring from this war," said Professor Robert Keohane of Duke University.”


Once again, Dems are on the wrong side of history.

Dumb comment. No need to even respond.


Thankfully, there are those who supported the big picture, and the war efforts, and Iraq is now experiencing a free election.

Ah yes, conservatives and their revisionist history. The big picture, just so you don't forget, was ridding the threat that Iraqi WMD posed to this country. The "free election" "spreading democracy" "big picture" is nothing more than revisionist history and a post-hoc justification for an unjustifiable preemptive war waged by the United States. Is it good that Iraqis had a free election? Of course. Was it the reason given to us for invading Iraq? No. If that had been the reason given to us for invading Iraq, would we have supported it? Of course not.


Continue being a follower and never questioning "what is", there will be those of us who pursue the truth and act on it and ALLOW you to have the ease of comfort that is your alternate reality of the way the world "really is". ;)

This from a guy who (a) has no first-hand information about what is going on in Iraq and (b) bases his whole argument from one op-ed. You go get 'em, you truth pursuer!

Slipnish
February 1st, 2005, 04:33 PM
Then you argue that the media has no responsibility to report truth, and instead should just seek to earn as much money as possible?

No, I think they should, but reality is what it is...


Also, 100% of all liberals who have posted in this thread, have missed the POINT of it. And I seriously doubt that any have read the article written by the actively deployed Captain.

In the States here (and elsewhere) we are led to believe that we are "losing" the war in Iraq. That our troops are getting slaughtered. That their resolve is quickly draining. That we are committing great acts of inhumanity. That the resistence is only growing.

THAT is the picture painted by the meida, and THAT is what is swallowed by liberals and the majority of the Democratic party w/o question.

Well, I dont think that is entirely true, but you can certainly make a case for it in some instances of the media. There is certainly enough talk about the increase in terror once we leave and so forth.


When in fact, the opposite is true. Once again, Dems are on the wrong side of history. Thankfully, there are those who supported the big picture, and the war efforts, and Iraq is now experiencing a free election.

I don't think the "big picture" was supportable, but that is another thread. We have argued the should haves should have nots enough about our invasion of Iraq. We did it anyway, so lets move on...


Continue being a follower and never questioning "what is", there will be those of us who pursue the truth and act on it and ALLOW you to have the ease of comfort that is your alternate reality of the way the world "really is". ;)

I hardly count myself as a follower, I am just offering an alternate explanation for the problem. I agree that the media is hardly unbiased. I know that they are ratings based. I accept the fact that we have made great strides in killing off suspected terrorists. Ok..

And?

My alternate reality is just supposing the actual cause of yours... I blame the public for allowing shoddy media work. You can blame who you will...

mustang5
February 1st, 2005, 05:02 PM
I couldn't wait to get back to work and get on ODN. APOK beat me to it. Did a great job. You know how to call the nay-saying democratic rats out of their holes. Even hearing it from the horses mouth, A marine, who was there, they still simply arm up a response or drift off topic. It is just incredible how the Left thinks. I think you accomplished a very important task with this thread. People are showing there true colors and rearing their ugly heads. I haven't named anybody here, but I wonder what rat will take this bait as well. Great Post Apok!

Booger
February 1st, 2005, 05:45 PM
You know how to call the nay-saying democratic rats out of their holes.

Those commie bastards! They hate freedom just like the terrorists. Kill 'em all, those nacissistic atheistic rat bastards!


Even hearing it from the horses mouth, A marine, who was there, they still simply arm up a response or drift off topic. It is just incredible how the Left thinks.

What's incredible is basing an argument from one person's point of view and accepting it in full without any question whatsoever because it happens to square with your personal viewpoint. That's incredibly poor thinking. Not only did the original post fail to provide a cogent and complete argument for its central thesis (i.e., the "liberal media" distorting the facts in Iraq), it rests solely on the opinion of just one soldier in Iraq. I suppose if I posted a letter from a soldier in Iraq who said the war was going terribly and morale is low, I could claim it to be true and you would accept that? Oh wait, I already did that. I guess my argument stands. Case closed! :rolleyes:

In addition, the argument fails to address: (1) that the "liberal" media is to blame for distorting the facts, if the facts are indeed being distorted, and not other, "non-liberal" media, (2) who exactly comprises the "liberal" media (I will point out that the post indicates we are to include Al Jazeera in this) since Fox, of course, airs the same stories the other media outlets do, (3) that there is an agenda on the part of the liberal media to purposefully distort what's going on in Iraq, (4) the correlation between the nature of media coverage in the United States in general with the nature of the media coverage of the Iraq war, and (5) any countervailing arguments whatsoever. As Apok indicated in his first post, this was more of a rant than an argument anyway.


People are showing there true colors and rearing their ugly heads.

True colors? Ugly heads? Huh? Please elucidate.


Great Post Apok!

mustang and Apok; a match made in blissful ignorance... :P

Fyshhed
February 1st, 2005, 06:39 PM
I couldn't wait to get back to work and get on ODN. APOK beat me to it. Did a great job. You know how to call the nay-saying democratic rats out of their holes.
Like that time those honest, upstanding, chivalrous Republicans told the unbiased truth! (estimated time until occurrance of the event in question: indefinite)



Even hearing it from the horses mouth, A marine, who was there, they still simply arm up a response or drift off topic. It is just incredible how the Left thinks. I think you accomplished a very important task with this thread. People are showing there true colors and rearing their ugly heads. I haven't named anybody here, but I wonder what rat will take this bait as well. Great Post Apok!
CONFIRMATION BIAS
CONFIRMATION BIAS
CONFIRMATION BIAS
CONFIRMATION BIAS


I suspect you may be affected by a confirmation bias.

mustang5
February 1st, 2005, 07:11 PM
How's that bait taste? I can feel your misery. Come on you know you don't like being a democrat but your pride wont let you admit it. You'll be much happier when you start acting like a patriotic american, instead of a doom and gloom democratic nay-sayer. Why is an eye witness confirmation bias? And what letter did booger post from a marine with the democratic attitude?

Zhavric
February 2nd, 2005, 03:30 AM
Good to know we can count on Mustang to spam an intelligent thread with dogmatic ad homs into derailment.

Apok? What do you have to say in response to the points Booger has brought up? Mine? Slipnish's?