I did debate that in my mind a bit – do I start with a whole new series of “What Media Bias?” posts, or do I keep up the old series? As a conservative, the answer came pretty quickly – adhere to tradition. So, here we go.
As we have been saying for some time, we’re winning the campaign in Iraq – though, to listen to the MSM (not to mention the Democrats and the kook left), there has been nothing but a continuing disaster in Iraq. Rich Lowry over at NRO writes of the quiet victory the MSM is ignoring, and quotes from an excellent article in the Weekly Standard on the untold story:
The surge of operations that American and Iraqi forces began on June 15 has dramatically improved security in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. U.S. commanders and soldiers have reversed the negative trends of 2006, some of which date back to 2005. The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted to late 2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004. These trends persisted through Ramadan, when violence had typically spiked. “I believe we have achieved some momentum,” General Raymond T. Odierno, commander of coalition combat forces in Iraq, said modestly in his November 1 press briefing.
The MSM story line of the last week or so? That 2007 has been a bloody year for US troops in Iraq. Indeed, it has; and we must never forget those men and women who literally gave everything they have for the cause of freedom. But death comes to us all in the by and by, and what is more important than our deaths is how we lived – and those troops who have given their lives in this war have lived a life far better than almost all of us. While the MSM wrings its hands over the number of dead (and the MSM loves statistics – true or false, it doesn’t matter; given them a poll or a statistic and they’ll love you for the fact that they can make the story about the stat, rather than about what happened…which would require all that tedious legwork to get at the truth), the real story is what they who died accomplished. And what they have accomplished is a revolution in human affairs.
It is the end of “realism” in world affairs – that alleged realism which was first crystallised by Bismarck in the 19th century which really just boiled down to a cruel indifference to the fate of others. The first example of this was the way Bismarck turned over Polish rebels to be executed by their Czarist oppressors in the 1860’s. From that time to this, the realists have continually found reasons for allowing our brothers and sisters to suffer in the name of a false peace and/or a bogus stability. Poles, Jews, Czechs, Cubans, Cambodians, Rwandans, Sudanese, Tibetans, North Koreans, Vietnamese…on and on the list goes of bludgeoned nations who we helped into oppression because it was “realistic” and it helped “peace” and “stability”. Not any more – stability isn’t our ideal; freedom is.
The fact that the MSM is resolutely failing to see this just shows how incredibly biased they are – as well as how ignorant and downright useless they are becoming as transmitters of information. The old-line MSM (newspapers and network news) is already starting in on its death rattle, and its extinction cannot come soon enough.
I just caught this one! I don’t think you wanted to say this, NeoCon.
“While not the best choice of words for Bush to ues, propaganda (as described below) adequately defines the intent of his message.
The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.”
Okay, you just said that Bush selectively chooses facts to induce a emotional response that overcomes our rationale.
So it is okay that Bush does not convey the whole story to us and we should fight this war because our emotions tell us to instead of our reason?
Acting emotionally is almost always counterproductive.
Getting emotional in an arguement is the last thing you want to do.
Getting emotional behind the whell leads to traffic accidents.
Getting emotional with your co-workers lead to you losing your job.
Just think waht getting emotional in a war will lead to, neocon.
This has been a great blog entry. The nonsense is at a record peak!