This will be the MSM's new front in the War Against the Administration. They will begin their propoganda pieces tomorrow, with segments explaining to the public how RAT criticism is actually good for the troops and the war effort.After six weeks of hammering this point home, a new poll will be released showing the public supports RAT criticism and believes it good for the troops and the war effort.
"Efforts to establish a stable democracy" in Iraq
Will succeed - 56% public believe
Will fail - 63% media clerics believe
Going to war in Iraq
Correct - 48% public believe
Wrong - 71% media clerics
Iraq war has helped or hurt the war on terrorism
Helped - 44% public believe
Hurt - 68% media clerics believe
Torture of terrorist suspects
often or sometimes justified - 46% public believe
rarely or never justified - 78% media clerics believe
Bush's job performance
42% public approve
21% media clerics approve
To Fox's credit, they discussed this poll several times. But, their "media analyst" Marvin Kalb justified that "journalists" always skeptical and that 's why their view differs from public.
Well, 80% of public believe that gay marriage is wrong. 90% of people believe in God. 95% of people believe America is a great country and fee patriotic on July 4. These are facts. there is nothing to be skeptical about real facts.
Heartland America is not Pakistani Madrassas to indoctrinate their views on peoples' mind.
Good point for so early in the morning. One thing Sunday programs show us is what to expect in the upcoming week.
A guy I work with has a son in the Rangers, in Iraq. He was saying that they (his son and co.) are sick of all the criticism - it doesn't make their job any easier, and it is not like they can just pack up and leave if things get rough.
snip
This will be the MSM's new front in the War Against the Administration.
It's also a lie. Here's what Vice President Cheney actually said on this subject:
My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and the Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, "Cheney says war critics 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible.'"
One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way......Recently my friend and former colleague Jack Murtha called for a complete withdrawal of American forces now serving in Iraq, with a drawdown to begin at once. I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interests of this nation. But he's a good man, a Marine, a patriot -- and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.
Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated. But nobody is saying we should not be having this discussion, or that you cannot reexamine a decision made by the President and the Congress some years ago. To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind ourselves why this nation took action, and why Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and why we have a duty to persevere.
What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.
So, he very explicitly said that criticism of the policy was not a problem, he encouraged it. What he decried, and what he rightly pointed out was "dishonest and reprehensible" was, in effect, lying about what was and wasn't done in the lead up to the war. Now, extending this to troop morale:
The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight, but any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false. Senator John McCain put it best: "It is a lie to say that the President lied to the American people."
American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate.
So, what could (note could) hurt morale is lying about why they are there and how they got there. That is specifically destructive and a "deliberate falsehood" and "revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety." I think we can safely defend that premise, since what they are saying is demonstrably a lie.
This is the ultimate answer. THEY ARE LYING. It's provable. Roll the video tape. Read from the multiple official independent reports.
I repeat, THEY ARE LYING. Everytime they open their mouths (and that includes "innocent" questions from the MSM) we have to (rhetorically) slam their faces into a concrete wall and scream at them "STOP LYING YOU SCUMBAG!!!"
They will begin their propoganda pieces tomorrow, with segments explaining to the public how RAT criticism is actually good for the troops and the war effort.
Yes, they certainly will. But it will only work if we let it. We must particularly push back at anyone who says "I'm tired of saying this" when pointing out the truth. Telling the truth to liars is never tiring. They will eventually get tired of being shown up as lying clowns.