What Media Bias? Part 113
Tags: media bias.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
The headline:
US Deaths in Iraq Approach 4,000
Odd headline, isn’t it? I mean, they’ve been “approaching” 4,000 since, oh, 3,900 was reached…why put this out now? And why not wait for 4,000?
My guess is that the good news is coming out of Iraq all too rapidly these days and that public opinion in the US is turning towards continued support for the long-haul…and that, of course, will damage Democratic prospects in 2008. So, change the subject – use dead American servicemember’s as a prop in a leftwing morality play, courtesy of the supposedly unbiased MSM.
Of course, the loss of life is a sad thing – but the problem with concentrating on numbers like that is that it fails to put into context just what they died for. Its not like they were killed in a traffic accident just on their way home from work, now is it? Here is some of what they’ve been doing lately:
Tip leads Iraqi National Police to large munitions cache
Coalition forces kill 17 terrorists including six likely suicide bombers, detain 30 suspects
Suspected IED emplacers attacked in vicinity of Samarra
One terrorist killed, 21 detained in operations against al-Qaeda
Plenty to write about – and plenty which is interesting, newsworthy and likely to generate readership/viewership. Why write about the number of dead rather than write about the actual war? Can anyone find a headline from, say, June of 1944 which says that “US Deaths in Europe Approach 200,000″, rather than talking about what the troops were doing?
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
98 Responses to “What Media Bias? Part 113”
Caucus of Corruption
On Easter Sunday, the number hits 4000.
God help America.
U.S. Army Isn’t Broken After All, Military Experts Say
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
By Jennifer Griffin
WASHINGTON,DC
“According to Army statistics obtained exclusively by FOX News, 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so — a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal.”
Our Soldiers on the ground support our mission,it
is a shame that the liberals and their elected heroes
can’t do the same.
Obama’s judgment on defeating our “real” enemies(not the war on Bush that the liberals are engaged in)is a poor as supporting a church who’s
Theology is:
If the democrats had their way,Al-qaeda and Iran
would be celebrating their victory over the US now.
Think God we have stronger people in leadership than the democrats who voted to send out men and
women to war and now are stabbing them in the
back.
Progress in Iraq from the White house:
The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around — it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al Qaeda rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaeda out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his murderous network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.
The surge is working. Since all the surge forces began operating in mid-2007:
Overall violence in Iraq is significantly down.
Civilian deaths are down.
Sectarian killings are down.
Attacks on American forces are down.
Coalition forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives.
We have begun bringing some of our troops home as a “return on success.”
More than 90,000 concerned local citizens are now helping to protect their communities from terrorists, insurgents, and extremists. The “Awakening” movement began in Anbar in 2006, when Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda’s brutality and started a popular uprising. As this effort succeeded, it inspired other Iraqis to take up the fight.
To take advantage of this opportunity, we sent 4,000 additional Marines to help these brave Iraqis drive al Qaeda from the province.
The government in Baghdad has stepped forward with a surge of its own by adding more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year. Iraqi troops have fought bravely, and thousands have given their lives in this struggle.
As we have fought al Qaeda, Coalition and Iraqi forces have also taken the fight to Shia extremist groups – many of them backed, financed, and armed by Iran. A year ago these groups were on the rise. Today, these groups are increasingly isolated, and Iraqis of all faiths are putting their lives on the line to stop these extremists from hijacking Iraq’s democracy.
The U.S. has doubled the number of provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. Teams of civilian experts are serving in all 18 Iraqi provinces, and they are helping to strengthen responsible leaders, build up local economies, and bring Iraqis together so that reconciliation can happen from the ground up.
The Stakes In Iraq Are Great
The surge has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network.
The terrorist movement feeds on the appearance of inevitability and claims to rise on the tide of history, but the accomplishments of the surge are exposing this myth.
Defeating al Qaeda in Iraq will show that men and women who love liberty can defeat the terrorists.
POLITICAL PROGRESS
Political Progress Is Taking Place In Iraq
Millions of Iraqis have risked their lives to secure a democratic future for their nation, and America will not abandon them in their time of need. The vast majority of Iraq’s citizens want to live in peace, and they are showing their courage every day.
In October 2005, Iraqi voters approved a new permanent constitution.
In December 2005, nearly 12 million Iraqis braved car bombers and assassins to choose a permanent government in free elections under the new constitution.
On February 3, 2008, Iraq’s Presidency Council issued the Accountability and Justice Law, which will allow thousands of former Ba’athists to return to government jobs.
On February 13, 2008, the Council of Representatives passed two key pieces of legislation.
Amnesty Law:
The Government of Iraq’s General Amnesty Law represents a benchmark in facilitating political reconciliation and the rule of law in Iraq. The General Amnesty Law addresses the scope of eligibility for amnesty for Iraqis in Iraqi detention facilities, whether they have been brought to trial or not. The law exempts from this amnesty those who have committed specific serious crimes, such as premeditated murder or kidnapping, and those who are subject to the death penalty.
Fiscal Budget:
The $48 billion Iraqi budget represents a 17 percent increase in spending over last year’s budget, with a 23 percent increase in security expenditures. Capital funds allocated to the 15 provinces will increase over 50 percent, from $2.1 billion to $3.3 billion, reflecting the improved budget execution performance by provinces in 2007.
The Iraqi government passed a pension law in late 2007.
The central government of Iraq continues to distribute oil revenue to provinces, even though the proposed oil law is still being negotiated.
The central government of Iraq reached its 2007 target of $30.2 billion in budget revenue one month before the end of the year.
The Government of Iraq recently completed early repayment of its outstanding obligations to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and reached a new Stand-By Arrangement with the IMF.
Iraq’s presidential council signed off Wednesday on a measure paving the way for provincial elections by the fall, a major step toward easing sectarian rifts as the nation marks the fifth anniversary of the war.
March 19,2008
Petraeus’s report will underscore how much progress we have made in defeating and freeing over
50,000,000 people from the jihad.
The liberals will make baseless and factless rants
while they continue their pathetic little war on Bush.
Here are a couple of interesting articles that put
the whinnying of surrender from the liberals in perspective:
Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire
August 12, 1945 http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/002843.html#002843
WASHINGTON DC (Routers) President Truman, just a few months into his young presidency, is coming under increasing fire from some Congressional Republicans for what appears to be a deteriorating security situation in occupied Germany, with some calling for his removal from office.
Wow!, where have we heard this before.
War Unwinnable In Face Of Renewed German Offensive
December 17th, 1944 http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/004711.html
PARIS (Routers) Long-time critics of the Roosevelt administration declared themselves vindicated today, as the Germans began a renewed offensive yesterday in the Ardennes Forest in Belgium, opening a huge hole in the “Allied” lines and throwing back troops for miles, with previously unimaginable US casualties.
We didn’t listen to the rants of surrender then,and
we should not let them weaken our resolve now.
So now we are in fact at 4,000 dead US servicemen and women.
And another 60 Iraqi civilians were blown apart today. Add them to the 80,000+ killed.
4,000 US dead, 80,000 civilians dead, 4.5 million civilians made refugees, entering 6th year of war with no end in sight, $600 billion spent so far on military operations alone, with estimated total tab of $2 trillion (and climbing on all fronts).
All to invade and occupy a country that had no ties to al-qaeda, was not an imminent threat to the US, had no WMD, and had no connection with 9/11. Meanwhile, the freaks that did commit 9/11 are making a comeback in Pakistan.
In the face of all of this, Mark Noonan echoes the sentiments of Dick Cheney: “So?”
Pearl Harbor – 2896 casualties
Compared to past wars, the War in Iraq has had few casualties.
“The idea is: Bush falsely blamed Iraq for 9/11 and wanted to invade for revenge.”
It is hilarious to watch liberals spin about how Obama’s 20 year support of Rev. Wright,his
“mentor”, “spiritual advisor”,and member of his campaign of a church whose theology promotes the genocide of the white man does not matter but they
whine and lie about a connection that President Bush has never stated.
L.A. Times Has Hit Piece on McCain — Which Resurrects the Old Canards About Ties Between Saddam and Al Qaeda
http://patterico.com/2008/03/23/la-times-has-hit-piece-on-mccain-which-resurrects-the-old-canards-about-ties-between-saddam-and-al-qaeda/
I want to concentrate on the article’s revival of a set of hoary old howlers regarding ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
But McCain openly disputed Bush administration claims that Hussein appeared linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “I doubt seriously if there’s this close relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein,” he told CBS News in September 2002.
Postwar investigations, including the 9/11 Commission Report and a report this month financed by the Pentagon, found no evidence of a “collaborative relationship” between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime.
Two paragraphs, three misstatements of fact. That’s a pretty impressive ratio, even for the L.A. Times. Let’s take them one at a time.
First, to my knowledge, the Bush administration did not claim that Saddam Hussein was (or appeared to be) linked to September 11. Bush and other administration officials have said that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda — a claim that, as I explain below, is fully borne out by the 9/11 Commission Report and the Pentagon report. But, far from claiming that Iraq was behind 9/11, President Bush has said the exact opposite, as this Associated Press story from September 2003 shows:
President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans.
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the president said. But he also said, “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11″ attacks. . . . The president’s comment on Saddam, the deposed Iraqi leader, was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks. . . . Rumsfeld said, “I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that.”
Don’t let the facts get in the way liberals.
What kind of morons attack civilians in time of war? I mean, cmon, you guys are right about that. These people must be cowards to do that. So why do you have on American forces and American charity, and ignore the truth?
We are NOT attacking civilians. As a matter of fact, you could say for every US Soldier that dies, innocent lives are saved. We dont go around targeting civilians, we are after those who do. The 4.5 million refugee’s didnt run from US Troops shooting at them. They ran from radical terrorists targeting them.
So you would uphold Saddams rule to oppose this? To uphold the tyrany he represented makes you fools, thats the alternative you dont want to acknowledge. Saddams son’s alone killed innocent people with impunity for fun, and Saddam made room in his prisons when there was none by killing inmates. Yes, Saddam retained information that gave hime the ability to renew manufacturing of WMD, and Thousand of Missle, and tones of materials and equipment remain unaccounted for to this day (but that does not mean that they do no/did not exist).
The truth is, freedom has its price. In the case of Iraq, its a painful toll to throw off tyrany and refuse to allow another tyrant to control you. Yet, the good things that happen in Iraq, we dont hear them. The Media like scandal, the media makes scandal to influence the general populations opinion. Polls? Who cares what polls the media presents us with. IF they dont give unbiased coverage, how the heck does anyone expect balanced polls from them?
In the end, its up to faith, hope and charity. This is what wins the day, not despair.
SUPPORT FOR WAR EFFORT HIGHEST SINCE 2006
Politico March 13, 2008
by: David Paul Kuhn
American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to rehape the political landscape.
According to late Feb. polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,
53% OF AMERICANS NOW BELIEVE “THE US
WILL ULTIMATELY SUCCED IN ACHIEVING IT’S GOALS” IN IRAQ.
The percentage of those who believe the war in
Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up,
from 30 percent in Feb. 2007 to 48 percent today.
The press ignoring the progress in Iraq is not
working out the way they and their liberal friends are hoping it would.
But the liberals constant anti-war antics and calling
for surrender embolden our enemies and get our
Soldiers killed.
U.S. News and World Report
by: Alex Kingsbury
March 12, 2008
Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the
news media expressing dissent or calling for troop
withdrawls from Iraq? THE SHORT ANSWER,ACCORDING TO A PAIR OF HARVARD ECONOMISTS, IS YES.
In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the authors are quick to point
out numerous caveats to their findings, based on data from mid-2003 through late 2007.
.In the short term, there is a small measurable cost
to open public debate in the form of higher attacks
against Iraqi and American targets.
.In periods immediately after a spike in “antiresolve” statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.
.Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.
Thanks liberals!
Irish Fiddler: Pearl Harbor – 2896 casualties
Compared to past wars, the War in Iraq has had few casualties.
You can’t compare WWII to Iraq. The comparison isn’t even close. We won the Iraq war within months of crossing the border.
Since 5/1/03, the day of the “Mission Accomplished” speech, over 3700 troops have died. If we count the number of troops that had major injuries in Iraq and passed after that, this number grows significantly. If we included those in the number, would that make you care more?
This isn’t a war, it is an occupation. The mode of fighting isn’t even close to what it was in WWII. The medical assistance is vastly different now than in WWII, so fewer die on the “battlefield”.
So save us with the WWII comparisons.
Seeing the marking of our Soldiers sacrifice in fighting
the war on terror makes me wonder how liberals,
who call themselves peaceful and open minded,justify
calling our “troops cold blooded murderers”,”mass murderers”,”child predators”,and all the other super intelligent statements and positions that liberals make.
Their liberal run city councils give free and obviously biased space to code pink(endorsed by Murtha and Howard Dean) to label our Soldiers “Bush’s gangsters”and deny the free speech and rights of people who want to talk to a recruiter about serving their country by chaining themselves to doors and physically restraining people from entering.
On a day where liberals will “talk” about how much they care for the troops, let’s look at what their actions actually show.
Special report: Tracing the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/07/special-report-tracing-the-lefts-escalating-war-on-military-recruiters/
By Michelle Malkin • March 7, 2008 12:54 AM
Ideas have consequences. Inaction has consequences. For the past several years, I’ve chronicled the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters–and the apathetic, weak-kneed response to it. In Unhinged, I devoted a sub-section of my chapter “They Don’t Support Our Troops” to the organized campaign of harassment against recruitment offices on college campuses nationwide. The anti-recruiter thugs have thrived thanks to a combination of public indifference, law enforcement fecklessness, and left-wing ideological apologism. As you may recall, I have personal experience with the anti-recruiter propagandists, who lie through their teeth, exploit media sympathy, and harbor nothing but raw hatred for the men and women who protect and defend their rights to bitch and moan.
It was also so progressive to attack people who
were celebrating Easter with this super intelligent
display:
More anti-war nutballs to add to the Unhinged photo gallery: Thugs attack in Chicago and Philly
By Michelle Malkin • March 24, 2008 08:22 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/24/more-anti-war-nutballs-to-add-to-the-unhinged-gallery/
This is absolutely disgusting, and perfectly in keeping with criminal anti-war thuggery. Remember that past protesters–also Catholic– have actually used their own real blood to vandalize recruitment centers. Guess these idiots in Chicago didn’t have the stomach for that, so they used “stage blood:”
Six people were arrested at Holy Name parish’s auditorium Sunday after disrupting an Easter mass to protest the Iraq war.
The group—whose female and male members identified themselves as Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War—stood up at the beginning of Cardinal Francis George’s homily and shouted their opposition to the conflict, which marked its fifth anniversary last week. As security guards and ushers tried to remove them from the service, the demonstrators squirted fake blood on themselves and parishioners dressed in their Easter finery.
How progressive!!
Baxter:
“……makes me wonder how liberals,
who call themselves peaceful and open minded,justify
calling our “troops cold blooded murderers”,”mass murderers”,”child predators”,and all the other super intelligent statements and positions that liberals make.”
Are you freaking kidding me????? You sound like a complete JACKASS.
I don’t know where you get your information from. I don’t know who used those names, but even if it was a “liberal” you are a dope for lumping all “liberals” into that category.
You are a complete and total fool.
It is good to see liberals express their true platforms instead of making the idiotic stance of “I support the troops but I don’t support the mission”.
Their mission is where they need support the most.
But now we have commentary from one of the
liberals leading supporters of the anti-war movement
and a big friend of liberal darling Cindy Sheehan.
Commentary: Why I Don’t Support the Troops
By Kenneth Thiesen 2008-03-11
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-11/article/29447
In the recent political battle around the Marine recruiting station in Berkeley there has been much confusion around the concept or slogan of “supporting the troops,” but opposing the unjust wars of the Bush regime. Many who oppose the Bush regime wars also say they “support the troops.” Let me say it straight out—I do not support the troops and neither should you. It is objectively impossible to support the troops of the imperialist military forces of the U.S. and at the same time oppose the wars in which they fight.
Yea!! Keep speaking that truth to power liberals!!
Well, Baxter, let’s see what the actual authors have to say (emphasis added):
Some additional interesting facts about this study is that they excluded data from violence in Baghdad because it was such an outlier. They concluded that “the insurgent response to low resolve periods may not represent an overall
increase in the total number of attacks, but rather a change in the timing of attacks.” (emphasis added) Most interestingly, though, is that their measure of “emboldening statements” was not based on such purported statements but “the number of times top Bush administration officials—the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Press Secretary, and the U.S. commander Iraq—refer to statements or actions by other U.S. political figures that might encourage violent extremist groups in Iraq.”.
Thanks, Bush Administration!
You know you are winning when the people who used to be your enemies take up arms and fight with you for Freedom.
IRAQI LEADERS THANK Vt. SOLDIERS FOR SUPPORT
Times Argus staff
by: Peter Hirschfeld
“In an unlikely Vermont appearence by the Sunni leaders of Al Anbar province Thursday, the moment
reflected their unflagging support for the United States’ war in Iraq.
“Thank you for all your assistance to your friends in Iraq,” Rafe Al-essawi, former Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, told Vermont Soldiers through an interpreter.
” WE HAVE DEFEATED AL-QAEDA IN THIS VERY LARGE PROVINCE OF AL ANBAR AS A RESULT OF OUR COOPERATION WITH YOUR FORCES,”Mamoon
S. Rashid Al-Alwani, governer of Al-Anbar, said through an interpreter.”THIS VICTORY CAME AS A
RESULT OF OUR COOPERATION WITH YOUR FORCES
AND OUR BLOODS HAVE SPILLED TOGETHER.”
We have reduced the violence in Iraq which has allowed Sunni,Shia,and Kurd to work together POLITICALLY AND SOCIALLY,which has reduced the
liberal whiners to complain about the fact that
Freedom costs to much.
Still waiting for liberals to show us how to fight the
War on Terror for free and without casualties.
But we know liberals are big on cut and paste propaganda and real short on solutions.
Diane,
The Harvard report plainly states that telling our enemies that we are going to give up and undermining this administration increases attacks on our troops.
plus
Many military advisors,leadersl,and Soldiers have stated on many occasions that the “cut and run”
crying from liberals and their heroes in congress
kept them from joining coalition forces and taking up
arms against Al-Qaeda,because they thought we
would abandon them.
From the USMC grunts network:
Negative comments from politicians played over television have a dramatic effect on morale, especially on troops who are otherwise indifferent and disdainful of politics in general. I cannot tell you how many times I have overheard marines and soldiers talking about various inconsiderate comments made from the likes of John Kerry, Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi about how we cannot win, how we should be brought home, etc. The Kerry comments really cemented his reputation with the troops and upset people more than anything else. It is unnerving to volunteer for service during wartime hoping to be deployed and having to listen to a politician explain how the troops need to come home, especially when we clearly have not finished what we started. There is a widespread perception amongst the marines I know, even those uninterested in politics, that the Democratic Party does not want us to win in Iraq for whatever reason. This is true even amongst Democrats who still maintain the party viewpoint on almost every other issue but the war. Morale is always a tricky issue to deal with, and it is difficult to tell a marine to buck up when he sees important people back home undercutting his primary reason for existing at the moment.
The news cycle in the mainstream media is about 4/6 months behind events on the ground. The evolution of the IED threat is a perfect example. I remember seeing an article in the Marine Corps Times about a new “speed bump” IED appearing in Iraq . This was about 6 months after we first encountered them. Likewise there was an article in the Washington Post/MSNBC about pressure plate IEDs several months ago that made it seem like this threat, which had been around for over a year, was somehow new. The same thing is true with the effects of the surge. The most accurate news reporting on the ground in Iraq is coming from bloggers and the alternative media. When I was in Iraq I would read Michael Yon and Michael Totten when possible for great stories on what was really happening elsewhere around the country.
But that’s okay diane,keep nit picking and whinnying
while you ignore the facts that you and your liberal friends continue to defend Saddam Hussein over
Freedom.
off to work.
Joe,
you are the Dumba$$,
Your democratic party marches and takes money from these people and groups.This is who you are and who your party supports.
The fact you put your hands over your ears and scream”it’s not me” does not change this.
How’s that impeachment going by the way idiot?
Baxter,
For someone who wants to complain about cutting and pasting, you’re certainly showering everyone with it this morning. Are you put out by my use of “cut and paste propaganda” from the study that you were so approving of just a short while ago in Comment # 58?
About the LA Times claiming Bush linked Sadam with AQ, as Ace says:
So, you’re [sic] presumption is that the men and women who man the US military’s public information system are liars?
Well, my presumption–which is backed by those things called “facts” you never seem to want to discuss–is that the mnf-iraq site is run by the Lincoln Group, a PR agency that is being paid millions of dollars to put the best spin on the Iraq war. You, uh, were aware that, weren’t you? Hell, maybe you weren’t–one can’t take anything for granted with you. Nice attempt to play the righteous indignation card, though.
Irish Fiddler -
“Pearl Harbor – 2896 casualties
Compared to past wars, the War in Iraq has had few casualties.”
The difference, Irish, is that WWII was for an actual reason. See, when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we responded by going to war against…uh… Japan. We didn’t go to war with Mongolia, or Thailand, or Tibet, Mexico. We went to war against those who attacked us. And those who attacked us were a threat to conquer the entire world – they had the means to do it.
Contrast that with invading Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy to be sure, be he had nothing to do with 9/11, had no ties with the groups that perpetrated 9/11, and was not a threat to the US.
So yes, WWII had far more casualties than the current conflict in Iraq. But WWII had a good reason for fighting, and those who fought and died in WWII did so to save the world. Those who fight and die in Iraq have done so with the highest honor and bravery, and are paying a sacrifice equal to generations of soldiers who laid down their lives in WWII. But the tragedy is that they are doing so for a lie, and for a President and VP who couldn’t give a damn.
1,000 soldiers’ lives in service of our country’s defense is a sacrifice worth making. But even 1 soldier’s life sacrificed for no good reason is 1 too many.
We now have 4,000 dead US soldiers in Iraq, and the Right tries to pretend like that’s nothing. But that horrible sacrifice it is not nothing. It is the reason behind the sacrifice that is nothing.
It is the perfect embodiment of the arrogance of power that Vice-President Cheney’s reaction to being asked about the roughly two-thirds of Americans who say that the fight in Iraq is not worth it was to deliver his trademark sneer and say, “So?”
MARTHA RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
CHENEY: So?
RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?
CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.
Which, of course, is a complete misrepresentation by the Vice-President because there hasn’t been any significant fluctuation in that number for years. American public opinion against the Iraq fiasco has been very stable. However, even if that weren’t true, Americans also believe this:
I wonder how sneeringly Dick Cheney could say “so” in reacting to that information.
No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.
Fluctuations? When did the polls fluctuate up and down? If anything, it is down and further down.
You beat me to it Diana. Nicely done.
Thanks, Joe. Don’t you think it would be better if the Vice-President had just expressed his true feelings and used the same approach as he did to Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor back in 2004 by telling the American public to “go f*** themselves”?
Most polls taken survey 1,000 people, maybe 2,000 sometimes, maybe 400, maybe 450. I’ve never been asked to take a poll. Have you? Anyone?
So … the government should pay attention to polls because 1,000 out of 300+ million say they should?
Alrighty then.
k4v, take a statistics course. You’ll understand.
Oh. My. Goodness. kimberly4victory actually just wrote that.
That made me laugh almost as hard as that clip from Big Brother last night. The woman said she was “done” being nice then preceded to spell it “D.U.N.”. Hilarious!
Mark,
Are you ever embarrased by folks like neocon and js?
Media bias.
Headline reads:
Bush Committed to Iraq Success
Now one would think that he came up with some epiphany of how to achieve said “Success”.
Nope… the article is about putting a hold on drawing down the troops.
How is that for misleading??
How about this comment from Dana Perino:
Perhaps the President should have given more thought to sending young men and women into Iraq if it was so hard of a decision.
Michael -
Actually, you are missing part of the quote. The entire quote was much worse. From the official White House transcript:
Q Let me go back to the Americans. Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting, and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: So?
It’s hard to tell here is Cheney means “SO? Who cares about the the American people think”, or if he means, “SO? Who cares about the cost of American and Iraqi lives”. Raddatz assumed it was the former. I’m not so sure.
And transcripts don’t even capture the half-snickering manner in which Cheney said it. Take a look at the actual interview – the manner with which Cheney says “So?” with that smirk on his face is both chilling and an outrage.
As I said, it is the epitome of the sheer arrogance of power.
This weekend the death toll finally did reach 4000 and today the Green Zone was hit by rockets beliEved launched by members of Muqtada Al Sadr’s Al Mehdi army. Back in 2004 on the old mattmargolis.com blog I said Al Sadr was a threat. Since then he has quietly and steadily gained power while I have been repeatedly ridiculed and later ignored for mentioning his name.
Rockets coming close to the US Embassy IS newsworthy because it means
1)Muqtada Al Sadr is operating against US Forces with impunity or
2) He cannot control factions of the the Shiite militias anymore.
Both of those are cause for alarm. And no I don’t support Al Qaeda. I don’t hate America. I don’t want us to be converted to Islam. I don’t hate the troops. I’m not homosexual. And I never encouraged any girlfriend to have an abortion. I posted this because ignoring bad news in Iraq doesn’t make it go away.
I find it slightly amusing that the jackasses who routinely pooh-pooh polls which don’t say what they want to hear and remind us that they don’t mean much would be so emphatic that Vice President Cheney should be worried about them. Seems he should worry mostly about the poll that the American people took in 2004 called the election which picked him and President Bush over the democrats in the middle of this war. Maybe we should take a poll…
But, Jay! The schools! The hospitals! The Surge ™!
Uh, Michael, the person I’m most aware of around here that pooh-poohs polls would be your host, Mark Noonan. He has referred to them as “snapshots”. As to the “election is the only poll that matters” meme, Press Secretary Dana Perino thanks you for echoing the party line. However, the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t agree with the Vice-President, Ms. Perino or you on this point as I highlighted in Comment # 73. So, how about a sneer and a “so?”
Overwhelming majority? Really? How’d he ever get elected? Why haven’t they impeached him? Has he got some magical power? I prefer to think that he is just doing what he was elected to do and ignoring polls as being a stupid way to govern. And I’ve read plenty of jackasses on this blog saying that polls are no good – especially if they show something they don’t like. It just so happens I believe a majority of Americans (based on polls) want to see an end to the war. But an overwhelming majority, based on the same poll do not support the cut-and-run approach toward ending the war, which the left drools over.
Poor befuddled CW, digging up yet another oft-debunked Lefty whine and dragging it out with such pride: “The idea is: Bush falsely blamed Iraq for 9/11 and wanted to invade for revenge.”
No, sweetie, Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11 and the revenge thing was too silly for any but the silliest of the goofball Left to buy into. Which must by why you fell for it so hard.
Maybe it’s time for the mother ship to pick you up and realign some of those synthetic brain cells, Christian. Even the tiniest bit of ablilty to discern fact from fiction would make you, even marginally, less of an object of scorn and pity.
Marine, thank you for the stats. I’ve often wondered why we never see headlines like “Time to Pull Out of ______ (name a major US city)” when the death toll in so many of them is higher than that in a war zone such as Iraq.
And when the uber-rad Libs use bizarre statements like “safe abortions” when every abortion has at least a 50% fatality rate, it makes me wonder what these people use for brains.
We’ll see in the next few months, as they dig up the old canards and dust them off for this election cycle.
BTW, did anyone pick up on Diana’s pathetic attempt to slip by with her declaration that liberal bias in the media is just a “myth”? Yeah, right. As if anyone can prove anything BUT the absolute fact of blatant liberal spin in the Agenda Media.
But it’s always worth a try, Diana. Like a true-blue (well, true-red) Lib, it’s your job to just invent “facts” and throw them out there as if they have even a hint of truth.
As if you would know liberal bias if it bit you in the donkey. You and your ilk love to sneer at Fox News with your psuedo-witty snarl of “faux” news, when it is the only station that actually gives both sides of the news. Your overt hositilty to Fox is just proof that the truth hurts, really really hurts, and that you are offended by it.
Silly silly people……………
You’re absolutely right Mark. The media likes nice round numbers in their sensationalist headlines because they don’t like Republicans. I find it ethically disgusting to use our casualties as political fodder.
Regarding Diana and her Bush approval polls, the polls show a dramatic upswing in Iraq operations since the troop surge. Furthermore, Bush’s ratings are head and shoulders above the Democratic lead Congress. What say you?
Almiranta,
I was a bit worried that your latest scolding screed of Received Truths would fail to take a swipe at me along with all the others you despise. However, my relief was palpable when I saw you taking me to task for pointing out the reality of one of the sturdiest elements of the conservative mythos, e.g., the Mainstream Media Bias Against Republicans. You really seemed to get worked up about it. Brava! However, I don’t really go for “Faux News”. I prefer the more accurate Official State Television.
Speaking of snarls, can you do your mouth in that same expression of utter contempt that the Vice-President used when he dismissed the unwashed, vulgar American masses with the single word, “So?” I think that might really work for you.
And I see that now the Left, not content with Thought Police, has initiated the Expression Police. Now you feel justified in going after Cheney because you are offended by the expression on his face.
You people have no sense of shame, do you?
And oh, the delicate sensibilities of such as Diana—and that is Diana with an A, not Diane with an E, as Diana does seem to take a comment made about one as being about the other—-about Cheney’s comment to Leahy.
I, and many, thought it was about time Leahy got his ears pinned back.
Leahy had the nasty habit of skewering people when they were testifying, especially in front of cameras, engaging in the “have you quit beating your wife?” type of pseudo-questioning, not trying to get at facts as much as making the witness look as bad as possible, fairly or not. He loved to grandstand, and play Gotcha! with witnesses even when his gamesmanship had nothing to do with the matter at hand.
And then he would play kissy-face with the person who had just been unfarily implicated in all sorts of evil things, with a big phony-friendly back-patting routine.
He smeared Cheney during Cheney’s testimony, hurling out all sorts of irrelevant and untrue allegations and implications, and then after testimony was over, he came up with that phony grin and put his arm around Cheney’s shoulders as if he had not just been a total ass-wipe.
And Cheney told him what he thought.
And only to the most simple-minded of the most simple-minded of the simple-minded was this “..on the floor of the Senate”. Well, they WERE standing on a floor. And the floor WAS in the Senate. But the session was over, and it was not during an official convocation.
It’s so funny to see people like Diana get their panties in a twist about this, when they were so blase about serial promiscuity and adultery and sexual harassment in the workplace with a president getting blow jobs while engaging in official phone calls.
I guess Di just liked the look on Bill’s face…
But I’ll tell you what, Di—-you win, I won’t vote for Cheney this year.
Now, is there any interest in discussing the thread, or should we go after Lynn Cheney’s hairstyle? It’s been a while since you guys trashed the Bush twins…….
Jim,
Okay, I’m not quite clear what polls you’re talking about, but if you’re citing President Bush’s approval ratings then it’s definitely not pretty:
http://www.pollster.com/presbushapproval.php
Every single poll, including Fox/Opinion Dynamics, and the aggregate show the inexorable downward trend had slowed somewhat recently but has since resumed its march towards George W. Bush wresting the title of Least-Liked President from Richard M. Nixon.
Congressional approval has been on a long slide since 2002 (when the GOP controlled Congress) which turned sharply upward when the Democrats gained control in 2006. Since then they have suffered because they have continually caved to White House demands (from a deeply unpopular President) which was not what they were elected to do. However, even at that, I would aver that it’s a bit of hyperbole to say that the President’s numbers are “head and shoulders” above those of Congress.
Of course, with the House showing some faint signs of life over the renewal of the Protect America Act, it’s possible they might show some upward movement again.
Almiranta,
I thought Barack (middle name redacted) Obama just spoke a glorious speech that told his minions to “put the past behind thee” and look to the future where all will be sweetness and light and we will all come together. You know, Here comes Flat-top, he come groovin’ up slowly, yadda yadda. Sounds like the leebrul masses ain’t listenin’ to the Obamessiah, PBUH.
No, Almiranta, it’s not the Expression Police. Dick Cheney has had that look on his face for a considerable fraction of his political career without any comment from me. However, combining that sneer with his obvious contempt for what a bunch of stupid Americans might think about what their government ought to be doing except through casting ballots on election day, means that it had sunk to a new low, even for him.
In a moment of truthfulness we have a donkey admitting that governing by polls is the correct way to do it. Just imagine what that would look like. “I am for xxx, no wait, now I am against it until the next poll. Forget what platform I ran on. Your votes don’t matter, only these polls do. Plus I don’t have to stand for anything. Just let the polls tell me what I think.” Sounds just like Hillary.
LMAO, Almiranta! Excellent … excellent … excellent!
Sure, Michael. It’s been only five continuous years, thousands of people dead, thousands more maimed, untold thousands homeless and displaced, untold numbers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental effects, billions of dollars wasted and years of the American public having consistently turned against this Administration’s policies in Iraq. I’m glad you can smirk at all that. Please. You and the Vice President – enjoy yourselves.