More proof MSM is Conservative

[BrianH]

DIfferent war, different reason for going to war, different president (one who had a brain and could think for himself), different times, different place...

Doesn't matter, had we had today's media, opinion would have been more negative, given most Americans--even then- did not want to fight in any European war. This explains America's hesitations to get involved in both world wars. World War II was FAR more bloody and gruesome than the Iraq war ever thought of being...

 

[Charles_Main]

Doesn't matter, had we had today's media, opinion would have been more negative, given most Americans--even then- did not want to fight in any European war. This explains America's hesitations to get involved in both world wars. World War II was FAR more bloody and gruesome than the Iraq war ever thought of being...

Whats funny is these same libs, who say WWII was differnt , were screaming not long ago about How Iraq has taken longer than WWII and thats bad.

NM we have 14 million people under arms for WWII and half the world behind us, they make the comparison when it suits them, and say it is not the same when it does not.

Typical dishonest left wing behavior.

Charles

 

[Paul Itical]

MSM is conservative? Sure it is... and I'm Bill Gates.

 

[frazzledgear]

Whatever you think of Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment the very fact so little was broadcast on national TV and radio proves again what a wishy washy weak fourth estate our press has become.

"Although this is the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st century, it was also the most significant plea for a restoration of the republic, which had been swept to one side by the mad antics of a president bent on great crime. And as I listened with awe to Kucinich, I realized that no newspaper in the U.S., no broadcast or cable network, would pay much notice to the fact that a highly respected member of Congress was asking for the president and vice president to be tried for crimes which were carefully listed by Kucinich in his articles requesting impeachment."

Gore Vidal’s Article of Impeachment by Gore Vidal

Truthdig - Reports - Gore Vidal’s Article of Impeachment

Did you actually read the articles? It certainly explains why the MSM hasn't treated this like a serious story. Those articles are nothing but a politically motivated document using deliberate mischaracterization and distortions to express his own frustrations with the policies of a President from another party. The very first Article is downright laughable! Bush ran a "secret" propaganda campaign in order to garner public support for his attack on Iraq? LOL -gimme a break -this guy's notions of what are impeachable offenses are a joke! But gee, where is the evidence a "secret" campaign was launched and where is all that intelligence that totally contradicts what Bush said when he was before both houses of Congress and laid out his reasons for asking for authority to use force? Bush even turned over the additional intelligence he had received that the Senate Intelligence committee had not -and they UNANIMOUSLY (which means even the Democrats on that committee) agreed that intelligence was even more alarming than what the Intelligence Committee had been given regarding Iraq. So much for the myth that Bush somehow magically got intelligence that totally contradicted what Congress was given.

I think it is pretty darn hypocritical of people like Kucinich -among those who voted in favor of GUTTING the CIA under Clinton - yet insists the totally non-existent intelligence about 9/11 was more than sufficient for Bush to have totally prevented that attack. But then turns around and insists the quite specific, detailed and explicit intelligence he was given about Iraq should have led him to a decision to IGNORE IT. He is supposed to magically "see" intelligence that doesn't exist at all yet ignore quite specific intelligence when it comes to Iraq? The real goal of people like Kucinich is to try and put Bush over a barrel so that no matter what he does, they can insist he was wrong. His real goal has never been with the defense and protection of OUR citizens, national security and the right of this nation to exist free from the attacks of a lethal enemy that fights for no country but for a politico-religious doctrine instead. In fact, I'm convinced Kucinich doesn't have even a moron's concept of what national security is.

In spite of their claims, the one reason Bush did NOT give to Congress was saying Iraq had WMD. Lots of countries have WMD we wish didn't -but he pointed out the FACT that Iraq had proven itself willing to use them and had already used them against his OWN people as well as against another country. It was the fact he was willing to USE them that was given as a reason, not that he merely had them. And he did have them. Only an ostrich can pretend that because he successfully destroyed some and got the bulk of the rest out of his country before the war somehow means he never had them at all. He did -which is why the intelligence agency of every single nation on earth also came to that conclusion and no nation on earth stood up and said their intelligence showed otherwise. Its because their intelligence came to the identical conclusions -even France's. But let's pretend that sarin, mustard gas and their toxic breakdown components etc. suddenly appearing in the Tigris or Euphrates River meant nothing. Let's pretend the Israeli intelligence about secret flights into Syria by government planes loaded with WMD meant nothing (even though only Israeli intelligence got it right about how close Saddam was to a nuke prior to the first Gulf War when it said he was within 18 months of having a nuke -we were off by 12 years. Makes me feel real comfortable that our intelligence says Iran won't have nukes for at least 10 years but Israel says it is within 18-24 months) and for sure let's pretend the fact that the stockpiles of WMD that UN inspectors had tagged but not yet destroyed when kicked out in '97 that Saddam could not account for and said had NEVER existed either -but the remains of which showed up as a recent deposit in a Pakistani scrapyard -also meant nothing. As well as the fact that even though UN inspectors led by idiot Blix bent over backwards trying to let Saddam prove his claim they had all been destroyed after UN inspectors were kicked out -he couldn't provide a single document ordering the destruction, not a single document verifying the order had been carried out, no video showing the destruction, not a single witness or participant in the destruction -and not a single person who could even point to a spot on the ground where the destruction had taken place for chemical measurements -any ONE of which would have provided verfication for Saddam's lies.

Let's all feel an obligation to be idiots and agree that in spite of Saddam spending 7 years doing all he could to prevent UN inspectors from discovering his WMDs, only when no one was looking, did he turn around and destroy them. Even though not a single person ever saw it happen, not a single person participated in that destruction and not a single person knows where it happened. ROFL -that requires a level of idiocy I can't reach. Much easier for some, especially those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, who would rather give a known pathological liar, sadist and mass murderer every possible benefit of the doubt and insist that Bush must have lied in spite of the heavy documentation from numerous intelligence agencies that backed up everything he said to Congress.

No impeachment will take place and the MSM knows it. Just because Kucinich decided to write out his "charges" doesn't make them true and he provides no evidence they are at all -and there is a lot that shows they are not true at all. Maybe you think that just because he wrote it out as a formal document, it somehow makes it all true, but it doesn't and impeachment doesn't work that way. It just doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this amounts to nothing but a politically motivated action of the rankest sort by Kucinich who drew up a document that is not grounded in reality. But then, most voters don't think Kucinich is grounded in reality anyway.

 

[Article 15]

It seemed to me like the media turned on the war when the bodies started piling up and the pretenses began to get discredited. Before that we weren't supposed to suffer massive loss of life, the pretenses were supposed to be true, the war was supposed to pay for itself, and the job was supposed to be done in 6 months.

Gee ... do ya think that just MIGHT be something to report and use as a platform to rail against the Administration?

 

[Charles_Main]

It seemed to me like the media turned on the war when the bodies started piling up and the pretenses began to get discredited. Before that we weren't supposed to suffer massive loss of life, the pretenses were supposed to be true, the war was supposed to pay for itself, and the job was supposed to be done in 6 months.

Gee ... do ya think that just MIGHT be something to report and use as a platform to rail against the Administration?

Bodies started to pile up? you do realize by any realistic expectations, and by any comparison to any previous war, the casualty rate in Iraq has been astoundingly LOW not HIGH. we are still 10,000 below the amount the pentagon said could die in the initial invasion phase.

Once again just because liberals say something does not make it true. Just because they want us to believe casualty rates in Iraq are to high, does not make it so. By any reasonable Standard they have been very low indeed.

 

[Article 15]

Bodies started to pile up? you do realize by any realistic expectations, and by any comparison to any previous war, the casualty rate in Iraq has been astoundingly LOW not HIGH. we are still 10,000 below the amount the pentagon said could die in the initial invasion phase.

Once again just because liberals say something does not make it true. Just because they want us to believe casualty rates in Iraq are to high, does not make it so. By any reasonable Standard they have been very low indeed.

Link to the pentagon's prewar estimates, please.

Then some links proving that the MSM a) knew this and b) passed it on the the public.

 

[Charles_Main]

Link to the pentagon's prewar estimates, please.

Then some links proving that the MSM a) knew this and b) passed it on the the public.

Do your own research pal.

As far as MSN I said nothing about them knowing or passing anything on to the public. I simply was questioning the Liberal stance that Casualties in Iraq are unreasonably High.

 

[Article 15]

Do your own research pal.

I did.

It doesn't agree with your posts.

Hence your bluff being called.

 

[Charles_Main]

LOL what ever bud, its not bluff, it was your own Liberal pals who were screaming it to the roof tops before the Invasion.

Colon Powell himself said we could lose 15,000 Dead in the initial invasion phase. Just because you are unable to do research does not mean I am wrong, it simply means you are lazy.

 

[Article 15]

As far as MSN I said nothing about them knowing or passing anything on to the public. I simply was questioning the Liberal stance that Casualties in Iraq are unreasonably High.

So you aren't going to post any evidence to back up your claim then, huh?

K, I'll know in the future not to take you seriously.

 

[Article 15]

LOL what ever bud, its not bluff, it was your own Liberal pals who were screaming it to the roof tops before the Invasion.

Colon Powell himself said we could lose 15,000 Dead in the initial invasion phase. Just because you are unable to do research does not mean I am wrong, it simply means you are lazy.

It means that you are having a hard time finding something to coincide with what you posted and you are stalling.

It's okay to retract ...

 

[Charles_Main]

So you aren't going to post any evidence to back up your claim then, huh?

K, I'll know in the future not to take you seriously.

I do not have to post any links to prove Casualties have been low in Iraq. We have been there 5 years and lost how many? 5000. 1000 a year? Hardly exceptionally high losses by and REASONABLE standard.

However I understand that many of you are not at all REASONABLE.

 

[Article 15]

it was your own Liberal pals

My liberal pals?

I'm a liberal?

 

[Article 15]

I do not have to post any links to prove Casualties have been low in Iraq. We have been there 5 years and lost how many? 5000. 1000 a year? Hardly exceptionally high losses by and REASONABLE standard.

However I understand that many of you are not at all REASONABLE.

I see you Got your deflector shields up.

You have to post a link saying that the Pentagon estimated 15,000 casualities during the invasion like you claimed they did.

 

[Charles_Main]

I see you Got your deflector shields up.

You have to post a link saying that the Pentagon estimated 15,000 casualities during the invasion like you claimed they did.

Like I said find it yourself and believe what you want. It is not important. What is important is that Liberals want us to believe Casualties have been unreasonably high in Iraq while they have not.

Lets compare shall we.

Iraq - About 1000 dead per year
Nam - about 5000 dead per year
Korea - about 10,000 dead per year
WWII - nearly 100,000 dead per year

So now, tell me how any reasonable person would call Casualty rates in IRaq anything but exceptionally low.

 

[Article 15]

Like I said find it yourself and believe what you want. It is not important. What is important is that Liberals want us to believe Casualties have been unreasonably high in Iraq while they have not.

Lets compare shall we.

Iraq - About 1000 dead per year
Nam - about 5000 dead per year
Korea - about 10,000 dead per year
WWII - nearly 100,000 dead per year

So now, tell me how any reasonable person would call Casualty rates in IRaq anything but exceptionally low.

Yes, body count is low when comparing Iraq to our other modern wars.

It still doesn't mean they aren't unreasonably high ... especially considering what the public was sold in the lead up to the invasion and even more so when you compare it to Desert Storm ...

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes, body count is low when comparing Iraq to our other modern wars.

It still doesn't mean they aren't unreasonably high ... especially considering what the public was sold in the lead up to the invasion and even more so when you compare it to Desert Storm ...

Anyone who thought it would be like Desert Storm was a raging Idiot. There can be no comparison between kicking Iraq out of a tiny Nation they ceased, and actually invading and then occupying Iraq itself.

Here is a source that says the Pentagon estimated we could lose 18,000 dead in Iraq, I grant you its not the best source in the world.

I am still looking for a better one. I personally did not need a source because I was around in 2003 and remember being told we could lose nearly 15,000

the source

Pentagon's quietest calculation: the casualty count | csmonitor.com

I know I know its a right wing source, but its something. I will keep looking for the official estimates, which are of course always made High so people are happy when they end up lower than expected.

I can tell you this, if any one had said before the war that after 5 years we would have lost 5000 or less, we would have all said they were Dreaming. It is not fair to compare the losses to what a few Idiot Administration people said would happen. The simple fact is in the context of what has happened in Iraq, the amount we have lost can only be called LOW. I would say Amazingly low. Just about any other Nation doing the same thing would have Lost MANY MANY more troops. Yet Liberals keep telling us the Rates are too high, I have to wonder what they expect? I bloodless war?

 

[Article 15]

Anyone who thought it would be like Desert Storm was a raging Idiot. There can be no comparison between kicking Iraq out of a tiny Nation they ceased, and actually invading and then occupying Iraq itself.

Here is a source that says the Pentagon estimated we could lose 18,000 dead in Iraq, I grant you its not the best source in the world.

I am still looking for a better one. I personally did not need a source because I was around in 2003 and remember being told we could lose nearly 15,000

the source

I know I know its a right wing source, but its something. I will keep looking for the official estimates, which are of course always made High so people are happy when they end up lower than expected.

Well to be fair, comparing casualties with Iraq and any other war in modern US history is a bit silly because it's an entirely different war.

Here's what I found and I admit that I couldn't locate anything "official" from the Pentagon itself ...

Sources familiar with the plans told UPI that the U.S. Army already has about a division's worth of armor and other heavy equipment positioned in the Persian Gulf region, including brigade-size depots in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and on ships in the Indian Ocean.

U.S. Air Force planes are already based in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In the event of the attack, more planes would operate from Turkey, which is expected to join any U.S. effort against Iraq.

Former senior Army intelligence official Pat Lang said the United States would use U.S. facilities in Saudi Arabia, probably with a minimum of notice.

"The Saudi government would prefer not to know," Lang said.

Pentagon casualty estimates range as high as 2,000 deaths, but Lang pointed out that 5,000 deaths were predicted for Operation Desert Storm, which cost only 28 American lives.

The invasion of Iraq would occur from three directions: the north, south, and west using land- and sea-based forces. One U.S. analyst called it a "major amphibious effort" and "vertical envelopment" of Airborne and Marine Corps units. "There are a dozen ways to do it."

I can't post the link until I hit the 15 post mark on these boards. My guess is it's to prevent pr0n spammers.

 

[Charles_Main]

Well to be fair, comparing casualties with Iraq and any other war in modern US history is a bit silly because it's an entirely different war.

Here's what I found and I admit that I couldn't locate anything "official" from the Pentagon itself ...



I can't post the link until I hit the 15 post mark on these boards. My guess is it's to prevent pr0n spammers.

Yeah, I ran into that issue myself, so I made a few LOL posts to get to 15.

I too am having trouble finding Official Pentagon Estimates, however I clearly Recall hearing in the Run up to the war that we could lose nearly 15000. I am not 100% sure, but I think it was Colon Powell who said it.