Surge Works, Less Coverage

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Feb 29, 2008.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2008/fax20080228.asp

    Fewer U.S. Dead = Less
    TV Coverage of Iraq

    One year ago, liberal journalists depicted the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq as a certain failure. “A lot of people are going to go to bed tonight terrified,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews opined just minutes after President Bush announced the policy on January 10, 2007. Other journalists were only slightly more subtle. “Many experts warn, it’s too little, too late,” NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski argued on the January 8, 2007 Nightly News. The next morning on NBC’s Today, the network’s graphic describing Iraq was “Lost Cause?”

    At the same time, leading Democrats left themselves no wiggle room as they, too, denounced the surge. Senator Barack Obama called it “wrong-headed” and countered with a proposal to pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Iraq by March 2008. Senator Hillary Clinton came back from a quick trip to Iraq to declare: “I am opposed to this escalation,” while another Democratic candidate, Senator Joe Biden, blasted the troop surge as “a tragic mistake.”

    One year later, the President’s surge strategy is well on its way to succeeding. The Iraqi parliament has passed several laws meeting required political reconciliation benchmarks. Attacks in Baghdad have fallen up to 80 percent in the past twelve months, Reuters reported February 16. Deaths among Iraqi military forces and civilians have dropped by more than two-thirds, from more than 2,000 per month in early 2007 to fewer than 600 per month since November.

    And U.S. military deaths have also declined, falling from 126 in May 2007 to 40 in January 2008 and just 29 so far in February, with two days left in the month. Yet this good news seems to have diminished the media elite’s interest in broadcasting any news from Iraq.

    SNIP

    This is not neutral news judgment, but a great favor to anti-surge Democrats, since TV’s lack of interest in Iraq spares them the chore of defending their now-discredited opposition to the surge.
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,387
    Likes Received:
    790
    But there is no liberal bias in the media.
     
  3. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    What do you want them to do?

    Have a report every night talking about people who haven't been killed?
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If things are really going so well in Iraq, then I guess we can bring our troops home pronto.
     
  5. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    NO CHANCE!
    Iraq is a quagmire - practically everyone knows that... except for the acolytes. We will be there for a VERY long time.

    Thanks again to the current Administration - the balance in the Middle East has now been upset, petroleum is now at record highs, and our economy is slowly being bled to death by this quagmire. Whether it's McCain, Obama, or Clinton, the troops will be in Iraq longer than he/she/they will be in the White House.

    To claim that the surge has worked is laughable.

    Regards KenH,
    BiR
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    And it is doubtful, BiR, how much longer our nation can stand the fiscal strain caused by President Bush's Folly in Iraq.
     
  7. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    But wait, there's more.
    Just wait until President McCain decides to invade Iran too.

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a major reason why I will not vote for Senator McCain, BiR.

    Conservative Christians get all up in arms over the abortion issue; however, they would do well to be just as up in arms over the world that these children they care so much about in the womb(as do I) will be living in after they leave the womb.

    And I am convinced that a President McCain would make the impact of these United States on the world worse - continuing the horrid trajectory of President Bush.
     
  9. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Don't worry: McCain's gonna win.

    Many of them will vote for vote for him despite this.
    Look at that whole ordeal about the article in the New York Times. It wasn't a big deal when a similar story was on the Drudge Report, but when the story ran in the Old Gray Lady, all the acolytes went up in arms. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the intent all along. Many people who accuse the Times of having a liberal bias seemingly (or perhaps conveniently) forget that the whole "Curveball" story was in the Times.

    Looks as if John Mellencamp was right.....

    Again, regards to you,
    BiR
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. I have voted for a major party candidate four times in a general election and each time that candidate has won. I expect Senator Obama to be the fifth one to do so. :)
     
  11. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    I take it you don't include Iraqi deaths because they aren't human beings, like the gooks in Nam? This study from Johns Hopkins only goes through 2006.

    Study: War blamed for 655000 Iraqi deaths
    Story Highlights
    http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf

    • NEW: President Bush says he does not consider report credible
    • Gunfire found to be most common killer of Iraqis; car bombings on the rise
    • Study says 2.5 percent of population killed since war; death toll rising each year
    • Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion
    BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.
    Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.
    "Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55 )
     
  12. Dagwood

    Dagwood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's way to early to say who will or will not win this election. I cast my vote for Obama early, and I and had to stand in line. I have never seen as many democrats voting in my life as I have seen this election.

    I think Obama will win big, but the election is a long way off and a lot can happen between now and then.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if things are improving somewhat in Iraq, just look at the mess that Afghanistan has become because President Bush didn't finish the work there before starting his Folly in Iraq.
     
  14. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Please refrain from using racial slurs when attempting to make a point. Remember that this is a Baptist Board, and all comments posted here reflect upon all of us participating in this discussion.

    Thanks,
    BiR
     
  15. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Oh, you ain't seen nothin' yet, Dagwood. [sic]
    Just wait....

    Hope all is well with you,
    BiR
     
  16. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not only that but many more predicted that the situation in Iraq would decay into total civil war within a matter of months! That didn't happen either!
     
  17. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ah, and that may be true; HOWEVER, it most definitely will should the US pull the troops out of Iraq. In other words, there is no end in sight. Think about the total cost of an endless war, both in terms of lives lost and money spent.

    That is the very definition of a quagmire.

    Hope you are having a great evening,
    BiR
     
  18. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It could be an "endless" war but not necessarily requiring the same degree of our involvement in Iraq. Time will tell how effect Iraq can be as it continues to assume more and more of the responsibility itself and time will tell how much trouble terrorism wishes to start there or elsewhere. I don't know the future.

    Regardless, there will be other challenges - including war - until the Lord comes again and that makes it "endless". I'm just glad we're still on the right side of it all in so far as the alternatives available among mankind.

    Also, my only regret about the original "quagmire" from whence the name came is that we didn't finish it to an acceptable outcome choosing instead to yield to our own comforts and not to enforce the treaty our enemies blatantly violated to their own benefit. I hope we do better this time.
     
  19. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Make no mistake, this IS an endless war, Dragoon68. If we ever pull out of Iraq (and we can't), it will indeed turn into a full-blown civil war.

    We will still be in Iraq when the Lord comes again. As for being on the "right side," exactly what side would that be? That is an honest question, by the way.

    Which treaty? Another honest question, by the way.

    Regards, thanks for taking time out of your Sunday to respond to me,
    BiR
     
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    But it is comforting to know that after another 14 mos. (incoming new President gets a 100 day "free pass" after Jan. 20, 2009), :rolleyes:
    then we can all say, "It's _______'s fault!", regardless of who that individual happens to be.

    Folks, I can assure you that the denizen of 'The Oval Office' after Jan. 20, 2009, provided the Lord does not come first, will then be neither George Walker Bush or William Jefferson Clinton.

    Beyond that, that individual will be entirely up to "We, the People"!

    And we will have no one to blame for that individual but "We, the People"!

    Ed
     

Share This Page

Loading...