More proof MSM is Conservative

[Article 15]

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?

The problem, Charles, is that those few idiot Administration officials happened to be the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense. And the guy that went before the U.N. to state the case for the invasion was the Secretary of State. And these statements were amplified by the "liberal" media megaphone. This is why Americans are upset. It isn't just self identified liberals. It's your average everyday people who only vote in general election years and tend to vote for the candidate who presents themselves best on TV. It's conservatives as well whom ordinarily tend to be more isolationists than anything.

Make no mistake about it ... the Bush Doctrine is a liberal foreign policy.

 

[Article 15]

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.

Couple of more and I can post the link ...

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

What is it with some people? If I read something here that I doubt, question or would like more information about - I look it up MYSELF from reliable and unbiased sources. Were you in a coma during those days leading up to the war? I clearly remember the predictions that casualties could easily exceed 10,000 being made not just by the Pentagon during press briefings, but by the armchair generals hired by news stations discussing their own hyper-inflated predictions for even higher US casualties than the ones given by the Pentagon. In addition, the Institute for War and Peace reported on April 11, 2003 that 77,000 body bags had been sent to Kuwait in preparation for this war -five times the number of body bags sent to the front in preparation for the first Gulf War. A pretty good gauge for the high end of possible casualties the Pentagon had considered possible but not the number of casualties they considered most likely. That number was 10,000 with the caveat it could be more.

Once those who are politically invested either pro or anti-war and incapable of an unbiased review of this war are gone -this war will be held out as the gold standard for how to most effectively wage war and topple a government while going to extraordinary lengths to protect civilian life. (Clearly the US still doesn't have good experience handling the aftermath once a nation has been militarily defeated since similar complaints about how it was done this time are eerily similar and nearly identical to the complaints heard during the German/Japanese occupations and will be used to improve future plans for any occupation. Oddly enough, some on the left seem to think those occupations are the "gold standard" and how to properly carry out an occupation when in fact they were quite harsh occupations and the people were ruled by US martial law for 5 and 7 years respectively.)

Going to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, above and beyond that laid out in the Geneva Conventions as required to protect civilians has never been among the primary goals of ANY warring party in history and in fact, among some warring parties even today inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible is among their primary goals.

Iraqi civilian casualties during major combat operations were historically low. They have suffered tens of thousands of casualties since -but not at our hands. By fellow Iraqis and infiltrating foreigners who deliberately targeted them for murder. Blame the US for failing to protect every Iraqi everywhere against a handful of thugs who drive a car into their midst and blow it up if you think any military can do such a thing -but those are not casualties that are laid at our feet, as civilians killed by the US either inadvertently or deliberately. They are laid at the feet of those who deliberately sought to kill them.

And don't bother to drag up some site claiming that tens and even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died during major combat operations. The absolute best way to estimate the number of civilians being killed in ANY conflict is by the number of fleeing war refugees. During the first Gulf War, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled to the borders, causing a humanitarian crisis for at least two of those countries -a strong indication that they were being caught in the crossfire in very significant numbers. Estimates put Iraqi civilian casualties during that war at around 100,000 and possibly twice as that.

Neighboring countries prepared refugee camps in advance of this war, hoping to avoid the humanitarian crisis that occurred in the Gulf War. The number of fleeing Iraqi civilians as war refugees this time around was ZERO. Only foreigners left -and only a few hundred of them at that, nearly all of whom left even before the first strike. It is a cold fact of war regardless of where that war takes place. Civilians, regardless of religion, ethnicity, tradition or culture act the same way when caught in the crossfire in significant numbers. They do not remain as sitting ducks and keep on getting killed in large numbers -they flee.

It was the first war waged on that scale in HISTORY that produced no war refugees at all. The very same nation that produced hundreds of thousands of refugees in the Gulf War -which tells you far more than some anti-war group insisting more Iraqi civilians were killed this time around than in the first Gulf War. That is just not believable whatsoever when the numbers of civilians fleeing would have been even greater than before. Not inexplicably reduced to zero. That only happens for one reason -civilians were not being killed in significant numbers and the civilian population felt pretty safe staying put. And considering the fact we relied far more heavily on smart technology compared to the Gulf War -that makes sense.

 

[Article 15]

What is it with some people? If I read something here that I doubt, question or would like more information about - I look it up MYSELF from reliable and unbiased sources. Were you in a coma during those days leading up to the war? I clearly remember the predictions that casualties could easily exceed 10,000 being made not just by the Pentagon during press briefings, but by the armchair generals hired by news stations discussing their own hyper-inflated predictions for even higher US casualties than the ones given by the Pentagon. In addition, the Institute for War and Peace reported on April 11, 2003 that 77,000 body bags had been sent to Kuwait in preparation for this war -five times the number of body bags sent to the front in preparation for the first Gulf War. A pretty good gauge for the high end of possible casualties the Pentagon had considered possible but not the number of casualties they considered most likely. That number was 10,000 with the caveat it could be more.

I did research it myself and could nothing to corroborate the poster's claim. I wasn't asking for him to move mountains just provide something to back it up. Unless I am mistaken this is a debate forum and in a debate it helps to have some sources for any "facts" one may want to present. Forgive me if I don't accept, "I clearly remember this .... ," or "because I said so," from an anonymous poster on a message board as a credible piece of information ... this is nothing personal towards you as you seem to be well thought out.

So it he was correct please provide some documentation proving so. I have no problem standing corrected. But I bet I can conjure up a whole mess of statements from Rumsfeld and co. downplaying fears and concerns to help sell the war.

And for the record I was preparing for the war as a member of a deployable COMM unit in the USAF during the lead up to the war.

Once those who are politically invested either pro or anti-war and incapable of an unbiased review of this war are gone -this war will be held out as the gold standard for how to most effectively wage war and topple a government while going to extraordinary lengths to protect civilian life. (Clearly the US still doesn't have good experience handling the aftermath once a nation has been militarily defeated since similar complaints about how it was done this time are eerily similar and nearly identical to the complaints heard during the German/Japanese occupations and will be used to improve future plans for any occupation. Oddly enough, some on the left seem to think those occupations are the "gold standard" and how to properly carry out an occupation when in fact they were quite harsh occupations and the people were ruled by US martial law for 5 and 7 years respectively.)

The war phase was executed quite well. Iraq fell fast. But Iraq had been decimated through superior air power. There was never any military parity. Essentially, they couldn't have fought back effectively even if they wanted too. So yeah, bravo for the war phase. It was the post war phase (and judging by the rest of you post I think you would agree) that was the biggest problem. It was a lack of understanding of the region and the unintended consequences that are really biting us in the butt i.e. ideologically driven incompetency. The administration expected one result, sold one result, and tried to force that square pegged result into a round hole for FAR too long ... to the point of insulting the public's intelligence.

Going to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, above and beyond that laid out in the Geneva Conventions as required to protect civilians has never been among the primary goals of ANY warring party in history and in fact, among some warring parties even today inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible is among their primary goals.

Iraqi civilian casualties during major combat operations were historically low. They have suffered tens of thousands of casualties since -but not at our hands. By fellow Iraqis and infiltrating foreigners who deliberately targeted them for murder. Blame the US for failing to protect every Iraqi everywhere against a handful of thugs who drive a car into their midst and blow it up if you think any military can do such a thing -but those are not casualties that are laid at our feet, as civilians killed by the US either inadvertently or deliberately. They are laid at the feet of those who deliberately sought to kill them.

And don't bother to drag up some site claiming that tens and even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died during major combat operations. The absolute best way to estimate the number of civilians being killed in ANY conflict is by the number of fleeing war refugees. During the first Gulf War, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled to the borders, causing a humanitarian crisis for at least two of those countries -a strong indication that they were being caught in the crossfire in very significant numbers. Estimates put Iraqi civilian casualties during that war at around 100,000 and possibly twice as that.

Neighboring countries prepared refugee camps in advance of this war, hoping to avoid the humanitarian crisis that occurred in the Gulf War. The number of fleeing Iraqi civilians as war refugees this time around was ZERO. Only foreigners left -and only a few hundred of them at that, nearly all of whom left even before the first strike. It is a cold fact of war regardless of where that war takes place. Civilians, regardless of religion, ethnicity, tradition or culture act the same way when caught in the crossfire in significant numbers. They do not remain as sitting ducks and keep on getting killed in large numbers -they flee.

It was the first war waged on that scale in HISTORY that produced no war refugees at all. The very same nation that produced hundreds of thousands of refugees in the Gulf War -which tells you far more than some anti-war group insisting more Iraqi civilians were killed this time around than in the first Gulf War. That is just not believable whatsoever when the numbers of civilians fleeing would have been even greater than before. Not inexplicably reduced to zero. That only happens for one reason -civilians were not being killed in significant numbers and the civilian population felt pretty safe staying put. And considering the fact we relied far more heavily on smart technology compared to the Gulf War -that makes sense.

Whoa there, cowboy. Are you trying to assume where my argument is heading lay and are trying to preempt them with these paragraphs? If so, please stop. I have no problem acknowledging that the US went through great lengths to protect the civilian population in Iraq and that no other power on the planet would have done so as well.

But millions were displaced or fled after the war phase and that is also a fact. And it comes back to post war incompetency and a tunnel vision view of how things were supposed to go.

It took the voters of this country to finally stand up and say enough before a real change was made in war strategy in Iraq. It is no coincidence that things finally started to turn a corner after the 2006 elections. Granted things got more bloody and violent before they got better but none of that would have happened had the administration not felt the heat from both the voters and the GOP's leadership who finally saw the writing on the wall when they lost both Houses.

But just to hint at another conversation altogether ... long wars don't bode well in a free society that has regular elections. In this day in age 5 years is a LONG time.

 

[editec]

The problem, Charles, is that those few idiot Administration officials happened to be the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense. And the guy that went before the U.N. to state the case for the invasion was the Secretary of State. And these statements were amplified by the "liberal" media megaphone. This is why Americans are upset. It isn't just self identified liberals. It's your average everyday people who only vote in general election years and tend to vote for the candidate who presents themselves best on TV. It's conservatives as well whom ordinarily tend to be more isolationists than anything.

Make no mistake about it ... the Bush Doctrine is a liberal foreign policy.

Now BUSH is a liberal?

My God! The liberals will accept ANYBODY into their team.

 

[stivex]

Anyone who thinks that the MSM is Conservative is way too far left.

 

[midcan5]

why aren't they talking about impeachment?

why are they talking about race and guns and gays? that's what conservatives want to talk about.

are you saying the liberal media is dumb?

I showed my right wing friend all kinds of proof that between 00 and 06, the gop took over the media and in the end, he still thinks its liberal.

you don't know you're being brainwashed.

Good post but convincing the koolaid drinkers is hard. MSM has been portrayed as liberal for so long because it is part of a frame of reference not because there is any truth to it.

 

[midcan5]

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.

Then you need to ask why they vote for him? And what Kucinich did is necessary for future historians as there will be many partisan apologists for this horror.

paradigm Iraq immoral

Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules



A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

 

[Charles_Main]

Oh by the way, someone asked me if I realized the US was a liberal Nation. Of course I do I am well aware We are a liberal Democracy. Which only means if you are Called Liberal on our Political Scale it means you are to the left of the Norm in a liberal nation. Or in other words you are a left wing loon

On the other hand if you are considered Right wing, such as myself, in what is a liberal Nation, then you are really not as far right as it sounds, as you are just to the right of center in a Liberal Democracy

So by that line of Logic, Liberals in the US are clearly More radicals than conservatives

 

[jreeves]

Good post but convincing the koolaid drinkers is hard. MSM has been portrayed as liberal for so long because it is part of a frame of reference not because there is any truth to it.

I guess over 40% of the media saying they are leftist isn't convincing enough for you. While 33% saying they are middle of the road and a paltry 25% saying they are right of the middle.

What else needs to be said, they have admitted to being liberal.

 

[Article 15]

Now BUSH is a liberal?

My God! The liberals will accept ANYBODY into their team.

In many ways yes, he is.

Comprehensive immigration reform.

Never saw a spending bill he didn't like (until 2007 that is).

No Child Left Behind.

Enormous increases in the size and influence of government.

Wilsonian-esque foreign policy.

etc, ect.

 

[Gunny]

Good post but convincing the koolaid drinkers is hard. MSM has been portrayed as liberal for so long because it is part of a frame of reference not because there is any truth to it.

Wow. Am I ever so surprised YOU would think one of the incoherent one's posts is "good."

 

[midcan5]

Wow. Am I ever so surprised YOU would think one of the incoherent one's posts is "good."

Katha Pollitt was on cspan's in-depth today and one thing she mentioned which again confirms the fact MSM is conservative is the fact that none of the left wing spokespeople appear on MSM. For instance Noam Chmosky or Howard Zinn, but right wing wackos are there, consider only Pat Buchanan or Sean Hannity. Anyone who thinks about the growing number of working poor or the transfer of technical jobs overseas can watch MSM and note they never hear a peep on these topics from the corporate stooges of network news?

 

[stivex]

Katha Pollitt was on cspan's in-depth today and one thing she mentioned which again confirms the fact MSM is conservative is the fact that none of the left wing spokespeople appear on MSM. For instance Noam Chmosky or Howard Zinn, but right wing wackos are there, consider only Pat Buchanan or Sean Hannity. Anyone who thinks about the growing number of working poor or the transfer of technical jobs overseas can watch MSM and note they never hear a peep on these topics from the corporate stooges of network news?

Pat Buchanan is as far right as Keith Olberman is far left. Sean Hannity is not a FAR right guy. He is a face for the right, though. You need to understand the difference between the right and far right to understand that. I would venture to say Pat Robertson is farther right than either of these two. He is a nutjob.

We have to understand the difference between normal and extreme to get anywhere is this discussion. Extremism is bad in almost any form.

Chomsky is ultra-left. He is Communist. That is why you won't see him on. Communism, if you don't remember, is against our capitalism. Remember the Cold war? Why would we want to side with communism? Even Dem heroes like JFK understood this. JFK is even famous for saying. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." So, why does everyone expect a government hand-outs, programs, or control? Socialized medicine is one form of ask what government can do for you.

 

[midcan5]

Pat Buchanan is as far right as Keith Olberman is far left. Sean Hannity is not a FAR right guy. He is a face for the right, though. You need to understand the difference between the right and far right to understand that. I would venture to say Pat Robertson is farther right than either of these two. He is a nutjob...

I guess I look at Olberman as a centrist, while he criticizes Bush strongly I don't see anything left wing about him. I rarely watch him so I can't be sure. Chomsky is hardly a communist, you could call him an anarchist or something similar. I believe he uses that to describe his political philosophy. But there is no reason anyone in a (supposed) free society cannot express their views, that he is not allowed in MSM, just demonstrates their conservative bent to me.

Did we ever fight communism? That phrase reminds me of terrorism, kinda vague and sorta meaningless. Sure we helped (?) a few nation Korea and South Vietnam but that was a mixed bag and was that communism we were fighting. What were we fighting in Kuwait? Saddamism? And is Afghanistan a fight against terrorism? None of these is clear cut.

Your ending was pure spin.

 

[sealybobo]

Good post but convincing the koolaid drinkers is hard. MSM has been portrayed as liberal for so long because it is part of a frame of reference not because there is any truth to it.

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them.

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

i Guess I Look At Olberman As A Centrist, While He Criticizes Bush Strongly I Don't See Anything Left Wing About Him. I Rarely Watch Him So I Can't Be Sure. Chomsky Is Hardly A Communist, You Could Call Him An Anarchist Or Something Similar. I Believe He Uses That To Describe His Political Philosophy. But There Is No Reason Anyone In A (supposed) Free Society Cannot Express Their Views, That He Is Not Allowed In Msm, Just Demonstrates Their Conservative Bent To Me.

Did We Ever Fight Communism? That Phrase Reminds Me Of Terrorism, Kinda Vague And Sorta Meaningless. Sure We Helped (?) A Few Nation Korea And South Vietnam But That Was A Mixed Bag And Was That Communism We Were Fighting. What Were We Fighting In Kuwait? Saddamism? And Is Afghanistan A Fight Against Terrorism? None Of These Is Clear Cut.

Your Ending Was Pure Spin.

I Agree Midcan. Just Because Olbermann Is Anti Bush, Does Not Make Him A Lefty Liberal. I Have To Admit, Rove Shifted The "liberal Vs. Conservative" Spectrum To The Right And Now Anything Anti Gop Is Considered Lefty Liberal.

I'm Guilty Of Falling For It. Sorry.

 

[sealybobo]

Didn't Bush double the national debt? How can conservatives call themselves fiscally responsible?

In order to cover newly-spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion.[101] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[101]

 

[Charles_Main]

Didn't Bush double the national debt? How can conservatives call themselves fiscally responsible?

In order to cover newly-spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion.[101] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[101]

Conservatives can call themselves fiscally responsible, because clearly Bush is not a Conservative. At least when it comes to spending. I am not sure why you lump every Conservative in with Bush. To me, a conservative, Bush has been nothing but disappointment after disappointment.

 

[sealybobo]

APPEALS COURT REVERSES JURY IN "AKRE V FOX TV" CASE:
Court Condones Media Lies, in Spite of FCC Policy Against "News Distortion"

QUOTE
Accepting a defense rejected by three other Florida state judges in at least six separate motions, a Florida appeals court has reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.


In a six-page written decision released February 14, the court essentially ruled the journalist never stated a valid whistle-blower claim because, they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.