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.
Blogs For Victory 
Our troops are doing a fantastic job, Fighting an enemy that don’t wear a regular uniform puts our troops at a great disadvantage. Yet they are still careful to protect innocent civilians. Our troops show compassion by not using tactics like the Wermacht used when they needed to clear out enemy fighters, they would machinegun down entire villages. The Luftwaffe would bomb residential areas without military targets, just to invoke fear and create chaos. Seeing democrats compare our troops to these guys is disgusting. Playing games with funding the troops is even more disgusting. If they can’t see the signs of success, they are blind. A year ago there was a civil war started by AL Qaida. Now the Iraqi’s have pretty much ran Al Qaida out of Iraq. A gigantic difference.
Our troops are doing a fantastic job, Fighting an enemy that don’t wear a regular uniform puts our troops at a great disadvantage. Yet they are still careful to protect innocent civilians.
Adding to our troops’ disadvantage is the willingness of some of our own left and the MSM (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) to jump all over the few wrongs that our side has done, while saying little if anything about the systematic violations of the rules of war by our enemies. The wrongdoing of Abu Ghraib, in which ZERO people were killed, was on the front page of newspapers for weeks on end, while Al Qaeda atrocities such as attacking entire villages and cooking the dead bodies of their juvenile victims and “serving” them to their parents are hidden on page 38-ish, if mentioned at all.
The real hidden reason that the surge has worked is not that the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad neighborhoods has been completed, or that AQ has run out of people to kill, but that the people of Iraq have become sick and tired of these monsters. In doing so, they have taken a mental step still beyond the capacity of many on the left: blaming terror on the actual terrorists, instead of unfairly blaming the Americans who are trying to stop the terrorists.
All right, the preview feature is here!
The media coverage of Abu Ghraib enraged the Iraqi’s and caused violence to increase. I would say MSN and the media have blood on their hands. Abu Ghraib fueled hate for America. Our reporters over there were more concerned with putting out SHOCKING news and ratings. They did’nt need to provide the world with graphic pictures of people being humiliated. That caused a uproar in Iraq and more death. It was very irresponsible, the media could have shown Saddam’s mass graves, or The Iraqi people NOW living free of Al Qaida in many areas , but instead choose to post news that caused many of our troops to get killed by IED’s, sniper attacks. The far left is more than Unpatriotic, they are dangerous. We need to put some duct tape over their mouth and lock them in the basement till the War has wound down, to prevent another instance like Abu Ghraib from being used as terrorist propaganda and encourage death to our troops.
stability isn’t our ideal; freedom is.
And therein lies the crux of the problem. The Left really doesn’t grasp the concept of freedom, unless it is the freedom of choice to destroy an unborn fetus. Beyond that, freedom is a concept that is almost totally alien to the Liberal mindset.
My favorite retired Army Spook, Ralph Peters, had a great, short oped in the New York Post yesterday that dovetails with your post.
The “left” or MSM or whatever you may call the us were correct on just about everything we leveled against this war, before it even started.
In fact, the warnings about the length of the war, its cost and consequences have all come true, unfortunately.
What we hoped for was avoiding this whole failure before it even was allowed to happen.
Liberal Mind
Alot of the left voted for the war, then changed sides. If someone was against it from the start that may be valid. But to change sides in the middle and then work against the troops shows no intregity.
integrity
Liberal one prediciton never came true — WMDs would be used against our troops.
The party line has been the WMDs were destroyed during the Clinton bombings – you know the ones during the Lewinski testimony – the ones to take attention away from Bill – the wag the dog bombings.
So, how could Hussein use WMDs on our troops if they didn’t exist? Or, why were the libs predicting such dire consequences? The FEW that made those “predictions” were FEW and FAR BETWEEN. The rest of the party voted FOR the war and are making a hasty retreat – namely one presidential candidate who was proud of her vote (how many times did we hear that?).
Face it, the wrong party was in the White House. The “failure” as you put it was not the sole result of one man but of the leftist politicians and their willing accomplises in the media you so quickly defend.
By wrong party, I mean if a lib was in the White House, the leftist politicians and the media would have oozed support, showed positive news coverage – just like in Bosnia/Kosovo.
TiredOfLibBullshit
I do not remember any prediction of WMDs being used on american troops. Maybe they were not vocal enough to make it across the atlantic.
I remember, however, many predictions of WMDs being found in Iraq, and it was a republican prediction, not a liberal one.
I even recall a speech from a republican saying (I’m quoting from memory here) “We cannot wait for the smoking gun to be in the form of an atomic cloud”.
As for the difference between what happens with this or tat party in the ovl office, just ask yourself :
Clinton had a blowjob. It led to a formal inquiry, in the course of which he was asked questions about his sex life while being under oath (I’m sorry, but to me this is really stupid. It does not affect his job and this questions should never have been asked). He nearly lost his job as a result.
What would have happened if he or his vice president had shot a man in the face with a shotgun ?
French,
Please read the following:
Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
on the Senate Floor
On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.
I have read and I see no “Saddam has WMDs and will use them on our troops.”
I see a lot of “Saddam wants nukes”, but this is no incentive enough to go to war, in my humble opinion. After, all, I do not see the US attacking North Korea (testing nukes), nor Israel (has them illegally)
French,
you need a better memory of what you say and what you don’t say. This is your assertion that I refuted:
I remember, however, many predictions of WMDs being found in Iraq, and it was a republican prediction, not a liberal one.
French,
Your posts are becoming too easy to debunk, I am getting bored with you. Read the following and at least keep up with the news:
GENEVA (AP)— North Korea agreed yesterday to account for and disable its atomic programs by the end of the year, offering its first timeline for a process long sought by nuclear negotiators, chief U.S. envoy Christopher Hill said.
Secondly, you OBVIOUSLY subscribe to far left websites to assert that Israels nukes are illegal. Making you less of a credible blogger.
The follwing is a blatant attempt, by the international community, to deligitimize Israels nuclear program. Which at present, is very much legal.
In recent developments, at the September 2007 meetings of the Vienna based IAEA, a critical resolution, implicitly aimed at Israel, was put forth which would put Israel’s nuclear program “under international purview.” The resolution was adopted with the US and Israel voting against it.
I wonder why the IAEA never took such a strong stand towards North Korea? Does that make you wonder at all french?
Well I did not remember that one. Sorry, my memory is not perfect, and I am not wired to the american media 24/7.
However, since I had never heard of this particular person before tonight, or at least have no recollection of it, may I assume he is a rather minor participant?
See, this is why I tend to limit myself to scientic or moral issues and to avoid the purely politician (not political, but politician) ones. My participation in the “Who said what” game is severely hindered by the atlantic. I will try to refrain from speaking on these subjcts any more.
However, my perception based on what filtered to me at the time (I was not very politically-aware at that time) was as I stated before.
As for your debunks, please document your quotes, so that I can look int the matter myself. Tomorrow morning.
BTW, thanks to the admins for the “preview” button.
…….may I assume he is a rather minor participant? – french
Sen. Rockefeller???
Just google Sen. Jay Rockefeller and you can find out how minor he is.
It’s media bias like this:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3866602
I believe that Mr. Krongard never ever talked or mentioned “business” with him. If I’m an Inspector General, and I don’t know my brother is on the board of a company I’m investigating, why don’t people believe me?
I’ll tell you why. It’s that darn MSM spreading their liberal bias.
The MSM shouldn’t be reporting stuff like this. They should believe Mr. Krongard. Period.
I believe him. Do you?
Another trial in the newspapers. Darn.
Sometimes I think you are huffing glue Mark.
Not but a week ago you had a post, TNN or CNN, (aka Media Bias Pt 106) in which you cited several major newspapers, websites and news networks that reported the decrese in violence. Last Sunday, the headline on CNN.com was that violence was down in Iraq. Yet now you claim that the “MSM” reported the complete opposite.
What’s wrong with you? It is like you have no memory of events that happened a week ago.
I actually believe you have a fine memory. The problem lies elsewhere. You are simply choosing to ignore the past post and focus on the reports which don’t support your conclusion that the war is going all peachy as evidence of a media bias.
So the war reports you cite depend on what you feel like talking about, percieved success in Iraq or a media bias. Very convenient.
It is gems like this that make me visit Blog4Bush (You guys will always be B$B to me):
“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.”
I sense that you would only consider the reporting of statistics of war casualties unbias and newsworthy if they read something like this:
1,000 soldiers die while fighting in the glorious battle to liberate the oppressed people in Iraq!
or
10,000 Iraqis died last month while trying to accomplish a revolution in human affairs!
The irony of course is that these headlines are bias in that they demonstrate a clear support for the war.
Bravo Mark, what you are asking for is propaganda.
“See in my line of work,” said George W. Bush, “you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
Our resident juvenile liberal, agent, has posted the above quote now on numerous occasions, for whatever reason. I believe that the Smearman doesn’t completely understand the definition of propaganda.
While not the best choice of words for Bush to ues, propaganda (as described below) adequately defines the intent of his message.
So smearman, when you and your fellow elementary classmates scream daily about your paranoia, and blatant lies about the Bush administration, one does have to “catapult” the truth.
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.
what,
You try so desperately to convey a deep sense of concern for those killed during this war effort. Which is laughable.
You don’t give a DAMN about our soldiers lives, the Iraqis lives, or anybodys life other than your own.
So spare us the crocodile tears.
Ah neocon,
Good job for not addressing anything I wrote in my post and reverting to the “you hate America” insult. Very classy.
What is strange is I wasn’t trying to convey a deep sense of concern in either post. I was merelypointing out Mark wanted propaganda as oppose to news and that you selectively pick news sources to prove a non-existant bias. This post is about media bias so I figure that is whatI should talk about.
As to whether I care about the casualties of war, I do. That is why I think reporting statistics on the war casualites is new-worthy unlike Mark who doesn’t want to hear the bad news that this year has been the bloodiest yet. I prefer to face the tradgedy of war instead of only celebrate the victories.
And I still get upset everytime The Newshour with Jim Lehrer shows the pictures of the weeks lost soldiers.
So neocon I don’t want to hear any of your juvenile, tired accusations of which you have no proof. Address my posts or don’t respond to them.