Survey: Media reports damage prospects for Iraq success

Uh.... who cares if the American people think that negative coverage damages troop moral. What matters is, does it?

All the guys I know don't give a flying F. what the media talks about. They care about the guy next to him... the guy he went through basic with, his CO, and oh yeah it would be nice if the whole Iraq thing turns out ok in the end.

 

Funny, I don't remember being asked.

You're kidding right?


[edit] Any anyway I don't even remember the last time I saw a headlines on the war.Seems congress has forgotten about Iraq too.

-------------

As Congress opens the 2008 session, it’s hard to find Iraq anywhere on the official agenda.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has no Iraq hearings scheduled, while the House Foreign Affairs Committee is focusing on Pakistan.

The Senate Armed Services Committee also has yet to schedule any Iraq-related hearings, although Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is tentatively scheduled to appear on Feb. 6.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which focused on Iraq contracting fraud last year, has moved on to steroids in baseball as its high-profile cause.

The House Armed Services Committee is the only major panel with a scheduled Iraq hearing early in the 2008 session, and the focus in that panel reflects the new realities in Iraq, with a subcommittee hearing entitled “Post-Surge Alternatives in Iraq.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7916.html

 

Thank you for bolding the part that lets us know that this article isn't actually about any data that matter.

 

survey: basso sucks!

source: your mom

 

We all know that the Iraqi Terrorists will not finish their breakfast without first reading the New York Times.

 

many people have been saying it all along. The liberals' selfish political agenda puts the troops and the reputation of our country in harm's way in a pathetic attempt to advance their (the libpigs') selfish agendas and express their political frustrations.

 

This makes total sense.

It's not our occupation of a foreign country that encourages terrorists, nor is it out newfound penchant to torture liberally. It's not our use of uncontrollable mercenaries; neither is it the civilian deaths caused by all of these actions combined.

It's the newspaper stories. You know, the one's published here in America that are widely read by all of our terrorist enemies.

 

There is no doubt that total media control, one-sided propaganda, and not having the light of truth shone on the disastrous policies of torture, starting a war, occupying a nation, etc. would make those policies go over smoother.

Thank goodness that isn't really allowed in the U.S.

 

Yes by all means hide the negative stuff to keep up the morale.

 

basso don't you ever get tired of being stupendously wrong.

That saying had nothing to do with keeping up morale. It was a warning to not discuss critical military information because it might fall into the hands of the enemy.

You know, like discussing the name and work of a covert CIA agent with reporters.

 

that were illegal, and therefore needed to be exposed. in that case, our newspeople were doing their jobs.

 

we're fighting for freedom, so don't report on the gov't, because we're fighting for freedom, so don't report on the gov't, because we're fighting for freedom, so don't report on the gov't, because we're fighting for freedom, so don't report on the gov't, because we're fighting for freedom,

 

Exactly, how are we suppose to fight for our way of life if we allow people freedom?

 

Half the people think negative coverage hurts troop morale? No **** huh? Half the people are watching/reading news reports that tells them negative coverage hurts troop morale.