CNN's concerted strategy of hurting our war effort

So true.

I think the TJ's and Bassos think that the Sunnis who are in the resistance spend their days watching CNN and posting on blogs. I suppose they think it is true also of the average Taliban/herder, too.

Alternately they think the Taliban or the Iraqi resistance has a formal chain of command who order the local folks to resist foreign occupiers.

Hell the Afghans have mounted their 30th or whatever consecutive Spring offensive. It has become a near way of life. I doubt if they even know the difference between a Russian, an American or the Nato forces of Canada, France, Germany,Britain or wherever.

 

True, I would think a far greater hope for the insurgents and terrorists than true stories on CNN, would be Bush's continuing incompetence, failed strategies, poor planning, horrible personnel appointments, and general misunderstanding of the enemy, and what it would take to make the U.S. safer.

To me hanging their hat on that hope, has been much better than some five minute news story on CNN.

 

I have to admit...I *gulp* agree with a lot of what glynch says here. I don't agree with all of the bravado and the ardent opposition to the war itself...but geez...you have to admit that this has gone on so long and has a Vietnam feel to it.

One reason we lost in Vietnam is because we could not readily identify the enemy...same goes here. That gets to be very disheartening to the troops.

If the soldiers were resolute in believing that they were fighting the good fight, CNN could not dissuade them from that opinion.

 

Sounds like fascism to me.

I mean really - glynch brings up how hilariously dumb the Iraqi "information" minister is.

Do you really want that kind of a media?

 

Sounds like we should be more like the 80's Chinese government!
Free market with emphasis on locally made goods and less exports? CHECK
Containment and control of the media? CHECK
Condemnation of the liberal elite and willing to use military against them? CHECK
Heavy focus on expansion in the military? CHECK


Republicans for Deng Xiaoping!!

 

In a way, T_J is absolutely right. There is no military way that the terrorists around the world and/or the insurgents in Iraq can beat the US armed forces. Those that are opposing the US goals in the war can only hope to "win" by having the Americans quit. As the US is a democracy, the way to get the armed forces to "quit" is by getting the public to call for withdrawal. That being the case, any article critical of the war is helpful to the enemy.

I disagree that the articles should not be published, even though I support the war. Sometimes the American people do not feel the same way I do, and they have every right to elect the leaders that will do their will. I wouldn't personally choose to write or publish an article that is so obviously taking a shot at the war, but if the people in charge of CNN want to do so, that is there prerogative. I would hope that the American people could be a little more resolute, but that is just not always the case.

 

Once again

It is not the press or anti-war supporters that are emblodening the enimies, it is the the failed policies of this administration that is losing the war.

 

If we would have gone full-bore after Osama rather than invading and occupying Iraq, the public support never would have waned. Bush blew it when he went after Saddam. CNN has nothing to do with it.

 

there's a difference between free and responsible. i support both.

 

Media is going to lean one way or the other, just like people...I would hope people can see the times when it crosses the line and flip the channel.

However, I encourage this kind of debate to criticize media on this and bring attention to it...I'm just happy to have Fox News to balance the force...much to the chagrin of many on the left who would love to Hugo Chavez that notion...

 

This thread is amusing and shows us what pathetic shape the war an its few remaining die-hards (who would rather see others die, hard, rather than....ick...admit they were WRONG on a BBS! )

Now that everything else has failed and they have been proven tragicallly wrong, a comical, absurd, full scale attack on the acknowledgement of reality and the suspension of delusion is all they got.

Thank you for the laughs jorge. Basso keep up the good fight. Your sacrifices will be rewarded in BBS heaven.

 

I agree with you on this part, but I feel information was at hand for Bush to do what he did, and I would have done the same thing given information...

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

 

Osama was behind 9-11, not Saddam. That is where Bush blew it, and it's why he'll be remembered as the James Buchanan of the 21st century.

 

Yep!

Gotta love the fact that we went to war in large part by listening to forged documents (from Cheney's office?) and the great motivator of war reasons, “he tried to kill my daddy.”

 

"Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited"...from the article I cited.

By the way, in case a certain "trained parrot" is reading,...I would like to point out the article addresses numerous, and specific sources (cross reference support), contains quite a few names of consequence for accountability and validity, and certainly cites specific evidence for support... (such as wording in the butler report, and certain dates that are important, among much more...)

 

The author gives a good detailed summary of the lies and facts leading up to the Iraqi War debacle. He concludes:
**********
While many can imagine political leaders making mistakes, most Americans find it inconceivable that an American president could actually put personal or political interests ahead of the national interest or the welfare of the troops, especially on so grave an issue as war and peace.

But such individuals would do well to remember that there is a long history of this sort of behavior, and that it is an unfortunate part of human nature. The Europeans used to have an expression for this, which was all too well earned from their own experiences. They noted that “War is the sport of kings”.

This is precisely why America’s Founders so feared the concentration of political power that they created a system devoted to spreading that power out, through checks and balances, through federalism, and through guaranteed civil liberties. Often those institutional obstacles have been successful at preventing presidents from acting like kings, but sometimes not. During the George W. Bush presidency, Congress has been a side-show, and many of America’s Bill of Rights-provided civil liberties have been shredded.

Some Americans may believe that, while Europeans have been unfortunate enough to have suffered under warring governments, that could never happen here. The truth, alas, is that it already has, many times. We know today that the stories we were told by our government to justify US involvement in the Mexican war, the Spanish-American War and the Vietnam War, for instance, were complete and knowing fabrications, as the secret internal history of the latter war - the Pentagon Papers - definitively proved in that case.

Today, Americans will have to decide for themselves whether George Bush’s invasion of Iraq to protect the United States from the threat of terrorism was legitimate, or yet another example of a president sporting like a king, at the expense of the American people, the troops, the Iraqis, and the world.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/15/1896/

 

all the news organizations are guilty of such things. Remember when the media has some dignity, tact, and was not searching for pure shock value and playing on emotions?

Me either.

 

i really got to you didnt i?

hope you are enjoying "yourselve" with that!

 

I am enjoying myself at your expense...

I will politely ask that you not sidetrack this thread further though...

 

Bush wanted to go into Iraq as did Cheney - even before 9/11.

Bush saw what he wanted to see, it wasn't that the evidence was bad, it's that there is always bad evidence, and you can take one piece of information and ignore all the others if it fits what you want to believe.

That's what happened here. And yes, Bush needs to take responsibility.

A president can't blame the information when there was plenty of other information saying the opposite and many people advised him not to invade Iraq.

Sorry - this guy doesn't get a free pass out of the mess he created. Bush is 100% responsible for Iraq. No one else. He needs to be a leader and not point the finger every direction. He made bad decisions over and over again. He declare this was over before it began. And he failed to go after Bin Laden with the gusto he went after Saddam, and creating a bigger mess in both countries for both of it.