Mainstream liberal biased media caused the fall of Iraq....

[kaz]

The media pushed their liberal agenda of surrendering Iraq and Obama executed it by pulling out all US combat forces.

Now Iraq is a bigger mess thanks to the liberals and losertarians in this country.

Since libertarians would not have gone into Iraq in the first place, how exactly did we make it a "bigger mess?"

 

[Esmeralda]

LMAO

It's the old and oft repeated: everything that is wrong is either Obama's fault or the liberals' fault.

They must be those Faux News republicans: ignorant and stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, the Cheney/Bush unnecessary invasion of Iraq caused the fall of Iraq.

The Democrats were elected into office in 2006 with the main reason being ending the Iraq War.....that was EIGHT YEARS ago.....what ever happened to that? Are you sure that all of the blame of the Iraq War rests solely with the Republicans?

Specifically President Bush(43). He was given the power to use military force against Iraq by Congress. He decided that Iraq, a devastated country that has been at war or under harsh UN sanctions for 20 years, posed a significant threat to the worlds remaining super power.

All those in Congress who voted to give the president such deciding power should have resigned in disgrace.

 

[1776]

Losertarians pushed for "bringing the troops home" no matter the cost.

It's like pulling the police out of the ghetto then blaming others for the rise in crime.

The media pushed their liberal agenda of surrendering Iraq and Obama executed it by pulling out all US combat forces.

Now Iraq is a bigger mess thanks to the liberals and losertarians in this country.

Since libertarians would not have gone into Iraq in the first place, how exactly did we make it a "bigger mess?"

 

[1776]

Oh yeah, shit for brains....this is all fake news.

ISIS isn't really taking over half of Iraq and Obama never gave an order to 100% leave Iraq, despite numerous press conferences and campaign speeches of him declaring "victory for freeing Iraq and bringing home the troops."

An insane piece of shit behind a computer is proof the end of the world is near.

LMAO

It's the old and oft repeated: everything that is wrong is either Obama's fault or the liberals' fault.

They must be those Faux News republicans: ignorant and stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

The media pushed their liberal agenda of surrendering Iraq and Obama executed it by pulling out all US combat forces.

Now Iraq is a bigger mess thanks to the liberals and losertarians in this country.

The so called liberal media was completely on board (or should I say in_bed_with) with the invasion and occupation. Furthermore the Bush propaganda was parroted without question by most all the MSM, convincing a huge majority of American that Saddam was the next Hitler. It wasn't until all the propaganda about WMD turn out to be Curve-ball lies, and the policies carried out in Iraq during the occupation caused the three way Iraqi civil war. Thank god none of our kids are there right now.

President Bush tried to get the Iraqi to accept immunity for our soldier but couldn't. That's why we pulled out. President Obama was not successful in getting an immunity agreement from them either, so he was stuck following the Bush Pull Out agreement.

 

[1776]

Dumbfuck....most Democraps in Congress supported the invasion too, but then changed their tune once the insurgents caused trouble. The media and Democraps then washed their hands of Iraq and blamed Bush for everything acting like they had nothing to do with it.

Obama didn't try to get a SOFA, he wanted to leave and used his limp dick SOFA attempt being rejected as the excuse to leave Iraq over "campaign promises." Obama catered to idiot liberals like you instead of doing the right thing by getting a SOFA and keeping some US forces there to PREVENT THE FUCKING MESS WE HAVE TODAY.

The media pushed their liberal agenda of surrendering Iraq and Obama executed it by pulling out all US combat forces.

Now Iraq is a bigger mess thanks to the liberals and losertarians in this country.

The so called liberal media was completely on board (or should I say in_bed_with) with the invasion and occupation. Furthermore the Bush propaganda was parroted without question by most all the MSM, convincing a huge majority of American that Saddam was the next Hitler. It wasn't until all the propaganda about WMD turn out to be Curve-ball lies, and the policies carried out in Iraq during the occupation caused the three way Iraqi civil war. Thank god none of our kids are there right now.

President Bush tried to get the Iraqi to accept immunity for our soldier but couldn't. That's why we pulled out. President Obama was not successful in getting an immunity agreement from them either, so he was stuck following the Bush Pull Out agreement.

 

[Faun]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005
SOME SOLDIER'S MOM: MSM Anti-war Bias - What Milbloggers Have Been Saying All Along!

TV’s Bad News Brigade ABC, CBS and NBC’s Defeatist Coverage of the War in Iraq
This conclusion is based on a Media Research Center study of broadcast network news coverage of the Iraq war so far this year. MRC analysts reviewed all 1,388 Iraq stories broadcast on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News from January 1 through September 30. (In 2006, the MRC will release a similar analysis of cable news coverage of Iraq.) Among the key findings:

■ Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).

■ News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

■ Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

■ Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife —
than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories).

One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers.
In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

People... do you understand that the MSM and the Democrats WANTED Iraq to fail and "reported" and praised successes of the terrorists while telling the world and Americans our troops were the bad guys!
When our own representatives help the terrorists by saying:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

and when these statements are made most normal intelligent people would say..."geez doesn't this just help the terrorists in killing more troops"?
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you claiming that Iraqis were watching the news on ABC, CBS, & NBC in 2005 and that led to the fall of Iraq almost a decade later?

 

[1776]

It is amazing the kooks against removing Saddam from power can predict the future as if Saddam's crazy sons wouldn't be worse than him if left in power.

How long was the US supposed to enforce the "No Fly Zone?" How long for the UN sanctions and Oil for Food program?

The kooks don't know the US military was doing missions over Iraq in between both Iraq wars.....

 

[Moonglow]

No, no, 1776 is saying that ruling Iraqi Shiites are effective at running a nation, and their military is a great fighting entity, 1776 is stating that it's Oblama fault because he is president...

 

[BlindBoo]

Dumbfuck....most Democraps in Congress supported the invasion too, but then changed their tune once the insurgents caused trouble. The media and Democraps then washed their hands of Iraq and blamed Bush for everything acting like they had nothing to do with it.

Obama didn't try to get a SOFA, he wanted to leave and used his limp dick SOFA attempt being rejected as the excuse to leave Iraq over "campaign promises." Obama catered to idiot liberals like you instead of doing the right thing by getting a SOFA and keeping some US forces there to PREVENT THE FUCKING MESS WE HAVE TODAY.

The media pushed their liberal agenda of surrendering Iraq and Obama executed it by pulling out all US combat forces.

Now Iraq is a bigger mess thanks to the liberals and losertarians in this country.

The so called liberal media was completely on board (or should I say in_bed_with) with the invasion and occupation. Furthermore the Bush propaganda was parroted without question by most all the MSM, convincing a huge majority of American that Saddam was the next Hitler. It wasn't until all the propaganda about WMD turn out to be Curve-ball lies, and the policies carried out in Iraq during the occupation caused the three way Iraqi civil war. Thank god none of our kids are there right now.

President Bush tried to get the Iraqi to accept immunity for our soldier but couldn't. That's why we pulled out. President Obama was not successful in getting an immunity agreement from them either, so he was stuck following the Bush Pull Out agreement.

Is 147 greater than 111? 147 Democrats in Congress vote against it. As far as your lie that President Obama didn't try to negotiate a deal for immunity, well.......they broke off negotiations in Oct. 2011.


The Obama administration, concerned over continued violence and growing Iranian influence, for much of this year pushed to keep thousands of U.S. troops here in a significant-sized training mission. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi officials expressed support of the idea, and they negotiated for months.

It was politically delicate for both Obama and al-Maliki, who each faced widespread opposition from their respective publics to continue a war that was never popular in either nation.

But talks ran aground over Iraqi opposition to giving American troops legal immunity that would shield them from Iraqi prosecution. Legal protection for U.S. troops has always angered everyday Iraqis who saw it as simply a way for the Americans to run roughshod over the country. Many Iraqi lawmakers were hesitant to grant immunity for fear of a backlash from constituents.

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told a news conference Saturday.

Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Immunity Issue Scuttled Deal, Says Iraq PM

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck....most Democraps in Congress supported the invasion too, but then changed their tune once the insurgents caused trouble. The media and Democraps then washed their hands of Iraq and blamed Bush for everything acting like they had nothing to do with it.

Obama didn't try to get a SOFA, he wanted to leave and used his limp dick SOFA attempt being rejected as the excuse to leave Iraq over "campaign promises." Obama catered to idiot liberals like you instead of doing the right thing by getting a SOFA and keeping some US forces there to PREVENT THE FUCKING MESS WE HAVE TODAY.

The media pushed their liberal agenda of surrendering Iraq and Obama executed it by pulling out all US combat forces.

Now Iraq is a bigger mess thanks to the liberals and losertarians in this country.

The so called liberal media was completely on board (or should I say in_bed_with) with the invasion and occupation. Furthermore the Bush propaganda was parroted without question by most all the MSM, convincing a huge majority of American that Saddam was the next Hitler. It wasn't until all the propaganda about WMD turn out to be Curve-ball lies, and the policies carried out in Iraq during the occupation caused the three way Iraqi civil war. Thank god none of our kids are there right now.

President Bush tried to get the Iraqi to accept immunity for our soldier but couldn't. That's why we pulled out. President Obama was not successful in getting an immunity agreement from them either, so he was stuck following the Bush Pull Out agreement.

More rightard insanity. The Iraqi government didn't want the U.S. to remain there.

 

[healthmyths]

No, the Cheney/Bush unnecessary invasion of Iraq caused the fall of Iraq.

The Democrats were elected into office in 2006 with the main reason being ending the Iraq War.....that was EIGHT YEARS ago.....what ever happened to that? Are you sure that all of the blame of the Iraq War rests solely with the Republicans?

Specifically President Bush(43). He was given the power to use military force against Iraq by Congress. He decided that Iraq, a devastated country that has been at war or under harsh UN sanctions for 20 years, posed a significant threat to the worlds remaining super power.

All those in Congress who voted to give the president such deciding power should have resigned in disgrace.

So you would have been a happy Saddam lover starving over 100,000 children a year ALL because Saddam would NOT
sign a document certifying that all WMDs were destroyed?

All Saddam had to do was sign the document stating Saddam's WMDs were destroyed. But Saddam wouldn't sign which normal civilized
people would say.. "why would a leader allow 100,000 children to starve unless he HAD WMDs... and if he did why didn't he destroy them
to save 100,000 kids a year?"""

Tell me you Saddam lovers do you realize from 1995 to 2014 nearly 2 million children would have starved if Iraq had not been Liberated and Saddam deposed?

You all forget that Saddam had a chance to avoid the Liberation and his hanging by his own people simply by abiding by the dozens of UN resolutions!

 

[KNB]

Saddam could have blown his brains out in a viral youtube video and Bush was still going to invade Iraq.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I thought helping people made them dependent? Why do you want a dependent Iraq saving them from the virtues of starvation?

 

[Clementine]

No, the Cheney/Bush unnecessary invasion of Iraq caused the fall of Iraq.

Blaming Iraq on the media is like blaming your car accident on rain when you were driving 90 mph on bald tires.

That is a bad analogy. The media acts as spokespeople for liberals and they have a way of shaping public opinion and allowing bullshit to happen because people can't oppose something if they aren't informed. That is changing as people are waking up.

The liberals don't believe in allowing military to do the job. If we get involved, it should be a matter of going in and getting the job done as quickly as possible. Because the media follows the liberal mindset, they wait till our people are deployed, then they play politics and slow things down. It not only costs more lives, but makes the process drag out indefinitely. Because the media is the means by which liberals spin things, the truth stays hidden while politics win.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We lost in the ME, not because of media, because the leaders did not listen to the generals who cautioned against being stupid. Never know a neo-con who will take smart over stupid every time. They love stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What about conservative media and its cheerleading for this unnecessary and disastrous war?

 

[healthmyths]

What about conservative media and its cheerleading for this unnecessary and disastrous war?

Well first of all the MAJORITY of the MSM is NOT conservative and here is the proof which you evidently don't care to believe!

"When 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

85% DONATED to Democrat party.

Secondly unnecessary and disastrous"?

So you have no problem with 100,000 children a year STARVING because SADDAM would NOT CERTIFY WMDs were destroyed?

First of all you are ok with 100,000 children starving a year obviously.

Then you obviously don't seem to comprehend the FACT that Saddam was telling us HE HAD WMDs! Why else would he not
certify that they were destroyed? Please explain how to handle that information.
Do you think any leader would allow 100,000 children to starve just to keep up the myth of WMDs?

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.

And were you around after 9/11 when the Anthrax attacks occurred? Did YOU know for sure Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 or in Anthrax or
that he wouldn't use WMDs against the USA? How sure were you at that time???

All of the above events happened with out the benefit of hindsight!

But once the actual combat was over in May 2003... did the democrats' cheer or did they boo?
One thing they did for sure is ENCOURAGE the terrorist to continue murdering US troops!

 

[BlindBoo]

The Democrats were elected into office in 2006 with the main reason being ending the Iraq War.....that was EIGHT YEARS ago.....what ever happened to that? Are you sure that all of the blame of the Iraq War rests solely with the Republicans?

Specifically President Bush(43). He was given the power to use military force against Iraq by Congress. He decided that Iraq, a devastated country that has been at war or under harsh UN sanctions for 20 years, posed a significant threat to the worlds remaining super power.

All those in Congress who voted to give the president such deciding power should have resigned in disgrace.

So you would have been a happy Saddam lover starving over 100,000 children a year ALL because Saddam would NOT
sign a document certifying that all WMDs were destroyed?

All Saddam had to do was sign the document stating Saddam's WMDs were destroyed. But Saddam wouldn't sign which normal civilized
people would say.. "why would a leader allow 100,000 children to starve unless he HAD WMDs... and if he did why didn't he destroy them
to save 100,000 kids a year?"""

Tell me you Saddam lovers do you realize from 1995 to 2014 nearly 2 million children would have starved if Iraq had not been Liberated and Saddam deposed?

You all forget that Saddam had a chance to avoid the Liberation and his hanging by his own people simply by abiding by the dozens of UN resolutions!

Sorry Sparky, but starving children were not mentioned in SEC. 3 of the resolution that gave President Bush the power to decide.

Saddam Lover?

Saddam "wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction"?

I smell a re-write in progress..........

Bob Schieffer, the network's Washington bureau chief, announced the news this way (12/8/02): "Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, but should we believe him?" Interviewing a visiting senator on Face the Nation, Schieffer asked what would happen if U.S. experts "conclude that Saddam Hussein is once again lying, as he has so often in the past...claiming he doesn't have the weapons, when in fact we know that he has. What do we do next?"

Schieffer's question was quickly answered by the White House. "The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction," Bush declared (3/6/03) shortly before the invasion, in a typical pronouncement from that period. "He declared he didn't have any. [The U.N.] insisted that he have a complete declaration of his weapons; he said he didn't have any weapons."

Saddam?s ?Secret? ? FAIR

A personal appearance

60 Minutes' claim that Saddam "wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction" is all the more preposterous since Saddam Hussein actually appeared personally on 60 Minutes II to tell the country in no uncertain terms that had no weapons of mass destruction.
In the interview with Dan Rather that rather famously aired on that program (2/26/03) three weeks before the invasion, Saddam explained that Iraq had agreed to allow inspectors back into the country "even though Iraq was absolutely certain that what it had said--what the Iraqi officials had kept saying--that Iraq was empty, was void, of any such weapons, was the case." He did so "in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such weapons."