[Alberta's Child]

The reason the public doesn't like the war is because of the MSM's portrayal... If they were getting accurate reporting, the opinion of the general public would be vastly different.

With all due respect, that's a lot of baloney -- and we had better get off this "inaccurate MSM portrayal of Iraq" horse right now if we have any intention of being credible force in national politics for the foreseeable future. The MSM doesn't have to slant the coverage of Iraq at all when you've got dozens of U.S. military personnel killed and hundreds wounded every month -- more than three freaking years after the President declared an end to "major combat operations."

Ironically, the one guy in the larger scheme of things who comes out of this whole thing looking very shrewd is Muqtada al-Sadr. He knows damn well -- and has known all along -- that the U.S. was going to cut and run from Iraq at some point (due to political pressure in the U.S.) and leave the place in disarray, and he cobbled together his Mehdi Army to prepare for exactly this (so as to prevent a repeat of the 1991 debacle when the first Bush administration left the Shi'ites dangling).

[mutley]

"With all due respect, that's a lot of baloney -- and we had better get off this "inaccurate MSM portrayal of Iraq" horse right now if we have any intention of being credible force in national politics for the foreseeable future. The MSM doesn't have to slant the coverage of Iraq at all when you've got dozens of U.S. military personnel killed and hundreds wounded every month -- more than three freaking years after the President declared an end to "major combat operations."

To think that the media portrayal of the war in Iraq was not a major factor in the recent elections, is a perfectly ridiculous thing to think.

[Bushiefan]

"The MSM doesn't have to slant the coverage of Iraq"

Well, bless my boots. It's a war. Do you really expect no casualties? It is slanted when that is the major thing reported every day on the front page and on TV, and none of the positive or heroic incidences are reported.

If the 2400 killings in California in 2003 were blasted to the public via the MSM day in and day out, that might have an effect too. Who would want to visit or live there?

Iraq is the site of a war. What is the excuse of California and other states and major cities?

[kabar]

The MSM doesn't have to slant the coverage of Iraq at all when you've got dozens of U.S. military personnel killed and hundreds wounded every month -- more than three freaking years after the President declared an end to "major combat operations."

But the MSM is slanting the coverage of Iraq if you believe our returning military. You don't use a scorecard of the killed and wounded to determine if you are winning or losing. It is the accomplishment of objectives, which are important. I think we are winning using those criteria.

FYI: US dead and wounded declined in 2005 from 2004 and will decline again in 2006 from 2005. The MSM used the slight uptick in October 2006 to give people the impression that we were seeing a massive increase in violence. Of course it was also intended to influence our elections.

2004

Dead--848[KIA-719]; wounded--7998; Total--8,846

2005

Dead--846[KIA-676]; wounded--5943; Total--6,798

2006 thru November 8

Dead--659[KIA-565]; wounded--4,338 [thru Oct 31]; Total--4,997

November 1-8, 2006, we have lost 20 dead [16 KIA]. Barring some unforeseen development, 2006 will mark the second straight year that US casualties have declined. You won't read that in the MSM anywhere.

Of the 20,687 wounded since March 2003, 11,682 were returned to duty within 72 hours. It also bears mentioning that 5,716 Iraqi securty forces [military and police] have been killed or twice the number of American military lost. Iraqi losses have been increasing as they take on more of the security burden. In the "infamous" month of October 2006, the US lost 105 [KIA-99] compared to Iraqi security KIAs of 224. And to put October 2006 into context, we lost 96 dead [KIA-78] in October 2005.

Major combat operations have ceased. It is amazing that Americans have become so casualty averse and unable to put our current low rate of casualties into some sort of context. We are a nation of 300 million. If we can't deal with these kind of casualties in pursuit of our national security interests, then we are indeed a paper tiger. I say that advisedly as a Vietnam vet who was in Danang during the Tet offensive.

[snowrip]

With all due respect, that's a lot of baloney -- and we had better get off this "inaccurate MSM portrayal of Iraq"

I don't think I understand. Maybe you could give us all some examples of unslanted, unbaised coverage on things like school construction and enrollment, hospital construction, improvements to basic infrastructure, reduction in crime, women's rights, education, heroism under fire, military victories, small business and personal wealth creation, family relations, Iraqi police and military sacrifice, lack of torture of the innocent, freedom of speech and the press, evidence of WMD programs, history of Iraqi democracy, the investigation into intelligence processes, the "insurgency" as it actually exists, or anything related to any of the topics, from any MSM news source in the entire world. You can take the rest of your life... you'll need it if your goal is to show that the media coverage of the war in Iraq is unbiased in favor of liberalism and democrat rule. When you drum an unchallenged message into the heads of those with no time or inclination to investigate the issues, that message becomes a basis on which to form an opinion... or to cast votes.

when you've got dozens of U.S. military personnel killed and hundreds wounded every month

News flash... WE ARE AT WAR IN IRAQ. If you subscribe to the absolute fallacy of war without casualties, you'll be disappointed. For example, look at the figures for casualties during Vietnam, compare them to those in Iraq, and then cosider the democrat mantra breathlessly repeated by the media that Iraq is another Vietnam. Then, refer to my last paragraph.

You could also look up the definition of "war" in your dictionary. Better yet, talk to any member of our all-volunteer military, and ask them how they feel about giving their life for their country or for the guy next to them, or about sacrifice in general.Major Combat Ops, BTW, occur when combined forces (air assets, naval assets, armor, infantry, mechanized infantry and special forces) are engaged in combat with the combined forces of an opponent. We are fighting mercinaries and terrorists, the overwhelming majority of which come from other countries such as Iran and Syria. Currently, we lack the political backbone to engage them as they enter Iraq, and to strongly caution other countries to send them there (and more specifically,back up the warning with force if it is ignored).

[spinestein]

[...we had better get off this "inaccurate MSM portrayal of Iraq" horse right now if we have any intention of being credible force in national politics for the foreseeable future.]


With all due respect, this portrayal of the Iraq war as a failure simply because it's difficult, costly and time consuming is immature and naive and based on ignorance resulting from depending on network journalists for news. Spend some time asking the soldiers who are volunteering to fight there whether it's being won and they will, almost to a person, say it is, that the majority of the country is under control and only a minority of problem areas remain and it's just a matter of time before the Iraqis reach a point where they can hold their own without us.

I'm tired of the boneheads on the political left pretending that the millions of Jihadists intent on killing everybody who disagrees with their vision of a worldwide Islamist dictatorship are simply going to go away if we ignore them.

Those on the political right I expect to know better.