The link below tells it all------99 US soldiers were killed in Iraq in June, but instead of the headline showing this total as the lowest monthly total in 3 months (which it was)------instead the headline reads "Iraq Ambush Caps Bloodiest Months for US". The story goes on to say that 329 troops have been killed in the past 3 months.
This is typical-----the mainstream media always manipulating the headline to fit it's anti Bush agenda----no wonder the war is wearing on the uninformed public!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070629/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
I believe there is no way in hell we would have prevailed in the 1940's with today's news media and today's sense among a good number of people that war is always wrong (war is usually something to avoid at all costs, but it's not always wrong). Simply no way we would have prevailed.
We took so many losses in 1942 and 43 and the first half of 44....many "blunders" by the military, many friendly fire deaths, etc. We lost more men in a few hours then we have in 4 years in the GWT but very few times is any perspective brought into it.
Big battle, small news
Mainstream media virtually ignore the major U.S. push in Iraq
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Imagine it's June 7, 1944, the day after the D-Day invasion. You pick up your newspaper. There's no mention of Normandy on the front page, and only a brief reference to it in a roundup story on an inside page.
The biggest battle since the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime is under way in Iraq. It's outcome could determine whether the war is won or lost. But our news media have paid less attention to it than to Paris Hilton's legal troubles.
The heart of the offensive is Operation Arrowhead Ripper, in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, involving some 8,000 American and 2,000 Iraqi troops.
Many members of al-Qaida fled from Baghdad to Diyala, which borders on Iran, when the U.S. troop surge began in January. There are thought to be between 1,000 and 2,000 hard-core al-Qaida fighters in Diyala, mostly in the provincial capital of Baquba.
"They are ready for us," said former special forces soldier Michael Yon, now a freelance journalist embedded with the U.S. troops. "Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipers have chiseled holes in walls so they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots ... Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared."
It's no coincidence that Arrowhead Ripper began within days of the arrival in Baghdad of the fifth and final brigade of the troop surge.
"The U.S. ability to shift 10,000 coalition soldiers into a major operation outside Baghdad in the midst of a major security crackdown is the mark of significant operational flexibility," said STRATFOR, a private intelligence service. "This flexibility will allow the United States to keep pressure on the jihadists and thus impede their ability to plan complex operations."
Chiefly because of a shortage of troops, American offensives in the past have tended just to push insurgents from one part of Iraq to another. Arrowhead Ripper is different.
"The idea this time is not to chase al-Qaida out, but to trap and kill them head on, or in ambushes or while they sleep," Mr. Yon said.
"The city is cordoned, neighborhoods are identified as friendly or enemy territory, the neighborhoods are then segmented and forces move in," wrote Bill Roggio in his invaluable blog, Fourth Rail. "The combat operations are then immediately followed by humanitarian and reconstruction projects."
Simultaneous offensives are being conducted in another insurgents' rat's nest, Babil province southwest of Baghdad, and in Baghdad neighborhoods where coalition soldiers in the past have been reluctant to go.
Simultaneous offensives are the best way to gain decisive victory over a numerically inferior force, because they prevent the enemy from shifting forces from one front to another. The Union did not prevail in our Civil War until Grant attacked in the East at the same time as Sherman attacked in the West.
Our soldiers are being assisted by former insurgents who have turned against al-Qaida. Unlike the Anbar Salvation Council on which it is modeled, the Diyala Salvation Front isn't strong enough to take on al-Qaida by itself. But the intelligence its members provide could prove invaluable to our troops.
You haven't heard of the Anbar Salvation Council? Maybe that's because our news media have tended to treat good news from Iraq as no news. When Thomas Ricks of The Washington Post reported last September that a senior Marine intelligence officer thought Anbar province had been "lost politically," his story attracted enormous attention from his fellow journalists. Google lists 789,000 references to that one story.
The Anbar Salvation Council, a coalition of 41 Sunni tribes under the leadership of Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, has in very short order reversed that situation (if it were ever as dire as Col. Pete Devlin imagined). Al-Qaida has been all but driven out of Iraq's "Wild West." But Google lists only 114,000 mentions of the Anbar Salvation Council. (Paris Hilton has nearly 76 million mentions.)
The Anbar Salvation Council model is spreading. The Diyala Salvation Front was formed in May. More than 10 tribes in Baghdad and its suburbs have banded together to fight al-Qaida, USA Today reported Tuesday.
If Arrowhead Ripper succeeds, al-Qaida in Iraq will suffer a blow from which it may not recover. "In Diyala, both the foreign jihadists and their domestic allies are beginning to feel cornered, with few places left to hide," STRATFOR said.
But if Arrowhead Ripper succeeds, you may not hear much about it. A U.S. victory would be too embarrassing for those in the media who have staked their reputations on defeat.
Good post----very typical-----bleeding heart liberals!
The reason we didn't have such negative and unpatriotic reporting in World War II was that first of all Roosevelt wouldn't allow daily body counts----and secondly the war had more of a consensus as it was more obvious even to the uninformed majority that the country was under grave threat after Pearl Harbor. Prior to Pearl Harbor the same old crap----the bleeding heart liberal lobby forced isolation on us with the result that many more lives were lost over the course of the war than if we had entered several years earlier!
I rarely post and after almost 50 years as a lawyer, don't argue with anyone. BUT Murff's historical revisionism is, as my freshman English teacher (and his) used to say, "ludicrous". It was conservatives, not liberals, who were the isolationists prior to WW 2. After WW 1, the US refused to join the League of Nations. This led to agreement to the Neutrality Act which was supported by conservatives supported by senators Nye and Wheeler. The America First Committtee was determined to keep us our of the war, and supported by the VFW. Among its members were such staunch conservatives as Henry Ford, the above senators, Eddie Rickenbaker, Father Coughlin and General Wood board chairman of Sears & Roebuck. One of the strongest opponents of getting into WW 2 was the national hero at the time, Charles Lindbergh, who said that if we got involved, "life as we know it today would be a thing of the past". His popular view was that if we defeated Germany it would result in "the downfall of all European civilization, and the establishment of conditions in our own country far worse even than those in Germany today". There was strong pro-Hitler opinions in this country. My own parish pastor went to Germany for a visit and returned with glowing reports of the work Hitler was doing. Brush up on your history b/4 writing -- you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
harryp------Sen Bertram Wheeler was indeed an isolationist but no conservative----he ran as liberal/socialist Bob LaFollette's running made in his 1924 third party run for the presidency (progressive party ticket). Also, Joe Kennedy an out and out liberal was a big time isolationist.
I don't believe that isolationism prior to World War II can be identified by liberal or conservative tagging----it was more of a homogenious group!
Besides-----that was 70-80 years ago and has very little relavance to today----today it is unmistakeably clear that it is the liberals who are the isolationists! Isolationism is even a worse problem today than it was in the 1930s because communications between continents are much quicker ala jet aircraft, missles, internet, intercontinental phone, satellite connections, etc----also weapons are deadlier and more flexibly delivered-----also did we have suicide bpmbers back then prior to the war?
That was my point -- that you cannot identify pre WW2 isolationism with liberalism. Glad you agree.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 29, 2007, 05:18:55 PM
I believe there is no way in hell we would have prevailed in the 1940's with today's news media and today's sense among a good number of people that war is always wrong (war is usually something to avoid at all costs, but it's not always wrong). Simply no way we would have prevailed.
We took so many losses in 1942 and 43 and the first half of 44....many "blunders" by the military, many friendly fire deaths, etc. We lost more men in a few hours then we have in 4 years in the GWT but very few times is any perspective brought into it.
You couldn't be more wrong. The support for this war has waned not because of the losses. It's waned because of 1) the lack of any coherent plan for success by our political and military leaders, nor any indication they are capable of creating such a plan and 2) the lack of any sense that our cause is necessary.
In WWII we fought against major international powers that had invaded numerous other nations, attacked American soil and/or American allies and, most importantly, DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES. The losses, as dreadful as they were, were tolerable to the great majority of Americans because the public believed they came during a just, righteous and necessary cause.
None of that is true in Iraq. Iraq did not declare war on the United States, nor did it attack the United States. Iraq did not invade an American ally in the years leading up to the current war. Iraq did not present a credible threat to the United States.
Try as you might to spin the situation in Iraq into a necessary part of a war on terrorism, what it is in reality is a failed nation-building experiment, exactly the kind of military involvement in which President Bush promised he would not engage during his first election campaign.
Trying to make the current situation analogous to World War II beyond intellectually dishonest. The two circumstances are nothing alike.
Lastly, it's ridiculous to blame the failures of this war on the media.
The media didn't prevent Bush and Rumsfield from sending enough troops.
The media didn't cause the administration to act too slowly to turn Iraq back over to Iraqis.
he media didn't cause the administration to overestimate/overstate the level at which American forces would be welcome in Iraq.
The media didn't force the administration to dismantle the Iraqi Army when it was the best hope at establishing order after Hussein's fall.
The media didn't cause the Pentagon to fail to provide troops with enough armor.
It's unbelievable that the conservative movement has come to this: scapegoating the media for all its faults rather than ... oh, I don't know ... actually doing something to make this country better. Pitiful. Shameful.
MOST IMPORTANTLY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES
Interesting...it appears YOU ARE WRONG...Iraq DID declared war on the United States...Iraq DID shoot at our planes in the no fly zone (an act of war) and tried to have a President assassinated (and act of war).
Apparently that only counts when Italy or Germany declares war on us.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 29, 2007, 07:22:01 PM
Big battle, small news
Mainstream media virtually ignore the major U.S. push in Iraq
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Imagine it's June 7, 1944, the day after the D-Day invasion. You pick up your newspaper. There's no mention of Normandy on the front page, and only a brief reference to it in a roundup story on an inside page.
Most. Ridiculous. Comparison. Ever.
How can one take seriously a piece likening a minor battle involving 8,000 American troops with one that involved 15,000 boats full of troops??? More than 175,000 soldiers participated in D-Day and this guys thinks a battle featuring 10,000 deserves equal coverage? Hmmm .
Oh, by the way, the offensive in Diyala was reported the day it started on page 1 of the New York Times and it's been reported on pretty much daily since then. Same for the Washinton Post, which likewise reported it on page one initially and given it daily coverage since then.
So much for that "the media is ignoring it" bit, huh? Perhaps the author of these piece should spend less time making assinine analogies and more time doing his research.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 30, 2007, 12:49:13 PM
MOST IMPORTANTLY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES
Interesting...it appears YOU ARE WRONG...Iraq DID declared war on the United States...Iraq DID shoot at our planes in the no fly zone (an act of war) and tried to have a President assassinated (and act of war).
Apparently that only counts when Italy or Germany declares war on us.
Please find me Iraq's formal declaration of war on the U.S.
Thanks.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 30, 2007, 12:52:18 PM
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 29, 2007, 07:22:01 PM
Big battle, small news
Mainstream media virtually ignore the major U.S. push in Iraq
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Imagine it's June 7, 1944, the day after the D-Day invasion. You pick up your newspaper. There's no mention of Normandy on the front page, and only a brief reference to it in a roundup story on an inside page.
Most. Ridiculous. Comparison. Ever.
How can one take seriously a piece likening a minor battle involving 8,000 American troops with one that involved 15,000 boats full of troops??? More than 175,000 soldiers participated in D-Day and this guys thinks a battle featuring 10,000 deserves equal coverage? Hmmm .
Oh, by the way, the offensive in Diyala was reported the day it started on page 1 of the New York Times and it's been reported on pretty much daily since then. Same for the Washinton Post, which likewise reported it on page one initially and given it daily coverage since then.
So much for that "the media is ignoring it" bit, huh? Perhaps the author of these piece should spend less time making assinine analogies and more time doing his research.
It was done by one of those superhuman professional journalists you keep talking about. ;)
They attacked US planes, they tried to have a US President assassinated....acts of War.
By the way, please show me the "FORMAL ACT OF WAR" instituted by Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Haiti, etc in the last 25 years.
Thought I agree with Harry P that history cleary showed back then that the GOP were isolationists, most Democrats wanted no part of the war either back then.
Of course, one exception was FDR and his inner circle who did want "in".
Some historians claim that FDR actually pushed Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and provoking an act of war.
"FDR wanted into the "war" in the worst way. He had some interesting members in his inner circle. Names like Rockefeller, DuPont, Mellon, Astor, and Morgan. He had sent a communicae to Japan threatening that either they pull out of China or else........!"
Today, I would argue is a mixed bag and it continues to change as the political winds change. Many on the left seem more "internationalist" in the sense that the UN should have more power in settling disputes, etc They believe in a World Court, seem to have much less hangup on immigration and loss of sovereignty.
On the other hand, they are less internationalist when it comes to using force, weren't exactly thrilled with NAFTA and want more of an isolationist bent when it comes to trade.
Conversely, the right is more open market based, free trade, supports partnerships like NAFTA yet they are strongly in support of solid borders and cutting down on immigration and have much less reservations of using the military to protect American interests (i.e Israel, oil, etc).
All depends on who's ox is being gored.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 30, 2007, 01:00:34 PM
Quote from: Pakuni on June 30, 2007, 12:52:18 PM
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 29, 2007, 07:22:01 PM
Big battle, small news
Mainstream media virtually ignore the major U.S. push in Iraq
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Imagine it's June 7, 1944, the day after the D-Day invasion. You pick up your newspaper. There's no mention of Normandy on the front page, and only a brief reference to it in a roundup story on an inside page.
Most. Ridiculous. Comparison. Ever.
How can one take seriously a piece likening a minor battle involving 8,000 American troops with one that involved 15,000 boats full of troops??? More than 175,000 soldiers participated in D-Day and this guys thinks a battle featuring 10,000 deserves equal coverage? Hmmm .
Oh, by the way, the offensive in Diyala was reported the day it started on page 1 of the New York Times and it's been reported on pretty much daily since then. Same for the Washinton Post, which likewise reported it on page one initially and given it daily coverage since then.
So much for that "the media is ignoring it" bit, huh? Perhaps the author of these piece should spend less time making assinine analogies and more time doing his research.
It was done by one of those superhuman professional journalists you keep talking about. ;)
Sigh. ::)
I at least hope you let the author of this column know the error of his ways. After all, you're all about fairness and accuracy in the media. Right? ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 30, 2007, 01:02:15 PM
They attacked US planes, they tried to have a US President assassinated....acts of War.
By the way, please show me the "FORMAL ACT OF WAR" instituted by Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Haiti, etc in the last 25 years.
1. Iraq shot at U.S. warplanes flying over sovereign Iraq territory, i.e. Iraqi airspace. Now, if you're a big believer in the United Nations, you could reasonably (and accurately) argue that U.S. warplanes had legal authority to be there.
But you -- like Saddam Hussein -- are not a big believer in the United Nations, so I would assume you believe the U.S. had no authority to have their planes flying over Iraqi airspace. I mean, if the U.N. said it was OK for Russia to fly a few MiGs over Los Angeles, I suspect you might have a problem with it, no? You might even want your goverment to shoot at them.
The only alternative, I guess, would be to say you support U.N. edicts only when it suits you.
2. Iraq never tried to assasinate a U.S. president. They tried to assasinate a
former U.S. president. Former U.S. presidents are no different than you, me or any other American citizen, except they get paid more for their speeches. I highly doubt the murder of a regular American citizen, as atrocious as the act may be, qualifies as an act of war.
p.s. Even the assasination of a political figure doesn't amount to an act of war. Just ask the CIA.
By the way, Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Haiti, etc. are irrelevant to the post to which I responded. You didn't compare the Iraq War with Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Haiti, etc. You compared it with
World War II. You chose the analogy. Let's stay on topic.
Pakuni-----Of course the US had the authority to fly over Iraq airspace by UN mandate------whether Chico believes in the UN or not is irrelevant. Firing on planes that have legal flight paths is an act of war!
Why do you think former American Presidents have secret service protection? You don't have that----I don't have that----so please don't try to compare GB Sr. with the ordinary American citizeb----please!
Furthermore Sadaam was giving substantial sums of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and in very public ceromonies thereby sponsoring terrorism with the billions he was ripping off from the UN oil for food program----Dilfer the UN arms inspector said that Saddam retained the capability to manufacture WMD at a moments notice and indeed planned to do so when snactions were lifted.
so please don't try to make Saddam out as just a mere "pick pocket"!
It's funny seeing the Mirror say that about the US....didn't the Brits elect Blair time and again and wasn't Blair also part of the Iraq war? And didn't Blair just say again a month ago he would do it again and has ZERO reservations about it?
Didn't Howard of Australia say the same thing....also just being re-elected. I guess there are just a ton of "dumb people" out there according to the Mirror and Pakuni.....sorry Pakuni, but at the end of the day it's an election where you pick between two candidates. Unfortunately, it's often the lesser of two evils, it doesn't make anyone "dumb"...in fact it might actually indicate how SMART they were for not picking the other turd.
(http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/06/2007-06-30FairnessDoctrine.jpg)
Right...the WSJ / Rupert Murdoch situation isn't political. :o
Just ask Bill Moyers...you know, Mr. Down the Middle Bill Moyers, not a liberal bone in his body /sarcasm off
Bill Moyers at his tolerant and neutral best ::)
If Rupert Murdoch were the Angel Gabriel, you still wouldn't want him owning the sun, the moon, and the stars. That's too much prime real estate for even the pure in heart.
But Rupert Murdoch is no saint; he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was to chastity. When it comes to money and power he's carnivorous: all appetite and no taste. He'll eat anything in his path. Politicians become little clay pigeons to be picked off with flattering headlines, generous air time, a book contract or the old-fashioned black jack that never misses: campaign cash. He hires lobbyists the way Imelda Marcos bought shoes, and stacks them in his cavernous closet, along with his conscience; this is the man, remember, who famously kowtowed to the Communist overlords of China, oppressors of their own people, to protect his investments there.
The ambitious can't resist his blandishments, Nor his power to get or keep them in office where they can return his favors. Mae West would be green with envy at his little black book of conquests. Tory Margaret Thatcher. Labor's Tony Blair. George Bush. Even Jimmy Carter couldn't say no.. now Bill and Hillary Clinton, who know which side of their bread is buttered, like having it slathered by their new buddy Rupert. Our media and political system has turned into a mutual protection racket.
You will not be surprised to learn that Murdoch's company paid little or no federal income tax over the past four years. His powerful portfolio positions him to claim a big stake in Yahoo and his takeover of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, now owned by the Bancroft family, which, like Adam and Eve, the parents of us all, are tempted to sell their birthright for a wormy apple.
Murdoch and THE JOURNAL's editorial page are made for each other. They've both pursued the right's corporate and political agenda of the past quarter century. Both venerate what THE JOURNAL editorials call the "animal spirits" of business. But THE JOURNAL's newsroom is another matter - there facts are sacred and independence revered. Rupert Murdoch has told the Bancrofts he'll not meddle with the reporting. But he's accustomed to using journalism as a personal spittoon. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he turned the dogs of war loose in the newsrooms of his empire and they howled for blood. Murdoch himself said the greatest thing to come out of the war would be "$20 a barrel for oil."
Of course he wasn't the only media mogul to clamor for war. And he's not the first to use journalism to promote his own interests. His worst offense with Fox news is not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he's made of its journalism. Fox news huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities. Now he's about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national newsrooms remaining in the country.
But the problem isn't just Rupert Murdoch. His pursuit of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is the latest in a cascading series of mergers, buy-outs, and other financial legerdemain that are making a shipwreck of journalism. Public minded newspapers are being dumped by their owners for wads of cash or crippled by cost cutting while their broadcasting cousins race to the bottom. Murdoch is just the predator of the hour. The modern maestro of a financial marketplace ruled by money and moguls. Instead of checking the excesses of private and public power, these 21st century barons of the first amendment revel in them; the public be damned.
The liberal media is getting more and more one sided-----trying to make up for talk radio !
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Founding_Fathers.gif(//)