CNN Asks will there be a backlash? After US Troops defeat ambush

CNN TV | 11/30/03

[GeorgiaYankee]

During CNN's Sunday 10pm eastern news hour (repeated at 1am) Their "Last Call" question was "Will there be a backlash against US troops after the ambush that took place today?" They invited viewers to call in and give their opinion.

[GeorgiaYankee]

The question itself is the reason CNN is getting their a$$ handed to them by Fox. It's a question worthy of Al-Jazeera. It reverses cause and effect.

US troops are attacked and defend themselves, dealing the attackers a devastating defeat. All CNN can think of is "will there be a backlash." DUH! Our guys fighting back was the backlash morons!

It's like the question they asked about Bush's trip to Baghdad, "Should Pres Bush have visited the ordinary Iraqi people?" Yeah, sure, like he could walk down Main Street!

[dighton]

"If our troops destroy all varmints in their path, will varmints object?"

[GladesGuru]

Assinine articles like this one are why it has been dubbed "Communist News Network".

[Waco]

Let's rephrase a little. The U.S. troops were protecting hillary,,,,will there be a backlash?????

[hotpotato]

It's typical of leftists' minds. "If we defend ourselves, won't that make them mad at us?"

[Halleck]

"Those stupid soldiers, they should have let the Iraqis kill them, now they're in deep doodoo." - Off camera conversation overheard at CNN

[ETERNAL WARMING]

"Bush trip put US Troops in danger" but not Hillary's visit.

[JLS]

This thread should have been entitled, "CNN hoping for a backlash, invites comments from listeners to encourage it."

[Cindy]

Does CNN stand for Christian News Network?
NO.

Does CNN stand for Conservative News Network?
NO.

Does CNN stand for Cindy's News Network?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.

[Bullish]

Remember one thing....

President Bush can never, ever do anything that the punks and fags at CNN approve of.

PERIOD!

[Dianna]

The question itself is the reason CNN is getting their a$$ handed to them by Fox.

For weeks they've been crying about our guys getting killed and how awful THAT is. Then we fight back and now they cry and moan about a backlash. See how nicely that works for them?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Well, if the idea of a "backlash" for the battle had not occurred to any Iraq/Baathist dead-enders before, maybe it will now. Gee thanks CNN!

[dagnabbit]

Too bad CNN wasn't around at say, Midway, to warn against the "backlashes" sure to result from the Americans' heavy-handed treatment of the Japanese Navy.

[faithincowboys]

CNN is basically hoping for one. CNN will do anything to argue that we shouldn't fight the terrorists. Make no mistake, CNN would rather 46 Americans had been killed today in Iraq.

I was really disgusted when I saw Clintoon sychophant John King providing "objective" analysis of W's trip to Baghdad. John Queen said something to the effedct of "well will see how this is viewed by the public, if attacks follow the visit, many will think Bush's "in-your-face" move provoked the attacks."

It was disgraceful, it was undeniable that John Queen was trying to tell the terrorists, "launch a major offensive and make us bleed" so Bush's triumph is turned into tragedy. It was really grotesque. These people hate Bush so much, they would gladly wake up to news tommorow that every GI in Iraq got slaughtered. They would eat that up.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

CNN asks, "Will there be a backlash?"

There should be. Against CNN.

[KellyAdmirer]

In the crazed world of liberals, all that matters is appearing sympathetic. Only the side with people that get killed can be sympathetic, regardless of the fact that the people killed were vicious terrorists who would happily burn CNN's headquarters to the ground if they could get at it.

Of course, the sympathy angle only works for agents of dictators, terrorists, thugs and murderers. If Americans get killed, CNN's only response is "we have to get out of Iraq RIGHT NOW because we are taking losses."

CNN is a joke, liberals are a joke, maybe the soldiers should have just let the terrorists waltz into Baghdad and get Hillary - THEN maybe CNN would have supported the troops for once.

[RJayneJ]

Quote of the Day by Sapper26

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"It's typical of leftists' minds. "If we defend ourselves, won't that make them mad at us?"

I think it's even worse than that. The CNN management privately holds the opinion that the ambushers are not an enemy, but legitimate 'freedom fighters' to be viewed as the underdog and encouraged to rally against the imperialist Bush occupation. To them, the death of 1 Saddam terrorist Baathist with innocent blood on his hands is equivalent to the death of an 18 yr old American female troop. They would argue that as occupiers, it even justifies it.

That is another matter entirely, but fits in well with the CNN MO. Just like they shilled for need-a-Baathists all during the 90's. And just like the NYT in the 20's, the thousands of dead were of little consequence to these accessories to mass murder.

[thesummerwind]

LOL. CNN bleeds communist blood.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"vicious terrorists who would happily burn CNN's headquarters to the ground if they could get at it."

Disagree. CNN headquarters would be protected like a mosque!

The enemy is not stupid. We underestimate their intelligence, however limited, to our detriment.

CNN and Saddam had a mutually beneficial relationship thru-out the 90's.