NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams led Tuesday's newscast by listing the burden of the Iraq war in years, troops, deaths and cost before Jim Miklaszewski, unlike reporters on ABC and CBS, found it newsworthy to show a man, in the Senate hearing for General David Petraeus, shouting “bring them home!” In the next story, Andrea Mitchell decided to highlight, again unlike ABC or CBS, how John McCain “stumbled...by again describing al Qaeda as Shiite” and Williams turned to Richard Engel, NBC's Iraq reporter, who described Petraeus' decision to end troop withdrawals in July as “frustrating and disheartening in that the rules of the game have changed.” Williams opened:
The war's now five years old. That's longer than U.S. involvement in World War II. There are currently 162,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Death toll is now over 4,000. And the price tag of this war for military operations alone: nearly half a trillion dollars so far.
Before and after audio of a man yelling “bring them home!”, Miklaszewski helpfully suggested: “A protestor voiced what some Americans are demanding for U.S. troops.” In a piece by Mitchell on how the three presidential candidates approached Petraeus, she pointed how that “the Republican Senator also stumbled, briefly, by again describing al Qaeda as Shiite.” She countered: “Al Qaeda is Sunni, not Shiite. McCain immediately corrected himself.” So, if he immediately corrected himself, why highlight it?
NBC has been the most-interested in McCain's references to al-Qaeda as Shia or the Shia Iran helping the Sunni al-Qaeda. My March 20 NewsBusters item, “Moving on from Obama's Pastor, NBC Focuses on McCain 'Mistake,'” recounted:
A day after Barack Obama's speech in reaction to the bigoted and hateful rants of his long-time pastor, the network evening newscasts moved on -- with only ABC briefly mentioning the topic -- while NBC Nightly News, which has run just one clip of Jeremiah Wright and on Friday had instead featured a whole story about Obama's childhood friends cheering him on, centered a Wednesday night story around “a mistake” by John McCain. Anchor Brian Williams provided an ominous plug: “Did John McCain slip, or was his mistake intentional? His choice of words making news tonight.”
Kelly O'Donnell soon proposed: “Defense and national security are central to McCain's campaign. So a mistake he repeated this week has stood out. At least three times McCain incorrectly asserted that Iran is aiding al Qaeda.” After video of Senator Joe Lieberman whispering in McCain's ear, McCain corrected himself as O'Donnell explained: “The mistake, al Qaeda is a Sunni group while Iran is a Shia nation.” O'Donnell highlighted how “Senator Obama seized on the error,” concluding with the suggestion the one comment undermined McCain's image: “Leaving McCain to defend his expertise during a trip in which he intended to showcase it.”
How ABC and CBS framed the story on Tuesday, April 8:
Charles Gibson, ABC's World News:
Good evening. The senior commander of forces in Iraq told Congress today that significant, buty fragile, progress had been made in the war. And then, as expected, General David Petraeus called for an indefinite pause of troop withdrawals this summer. He refused to say if or when troop withdrawals might resume. And he would not offer an estimate of how many American forces would still be in Iraq after the election in November. Among those questioning the General on Capitol Hill today, all the presidential candidates. ABC's Jonathan Karl is at the Capitol.
Katie Couric, CBS Evening News:
Good evening, everyone. Seven months ago, America's top General in Iraq went before Congress to declare the surge was working and the U.S. could start bringing some troops home. Today, General David Petraeus returned to Capitol Hill, but this time he announced plans to stop those troop withdrawals in July with no timetable for resuming them. David Martin begins our coverage tonight.
Some highlights from the NBC Nightly News coverage:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Good evening. The man in charge of the war effort in Iraq, General David Petraeus, today reported to Congress on the status of the fight and what the future looks like to him. By his side was the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and, across the gulf of photographers, two Senate committees with a full day of questions about what's going on over there. The war's now five years old. That's longer than U.S. involvement in World War II. There are currently 162,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Death toll is now over 4,000. And the price tag of this war for military operations alone: nearly half a trillion dollars so far [on screen: “at least $430 Billion”]. Those are the stakes. Now the testimony and the politics of the day, we have it all covered. Our Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski, starts us off live on Capitol Hill tonight....
ANDREA MITCHELL: While today's witnesses echoed McCain's stay the course approach, the Republican Senator also stumbled, briefly, by again describing al Qaeda as Shiite.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN TO PETRAEUS: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
PETREAUES: Certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
McCAIN: Certainly not a obscure sect of the Shiites overall.
MITCHELL: Al Qaeda is Sunni, not Shiite. McCain immediately corrected himself....
RICHARD ENGEL, IN STUDIO: I watched it and overwhelmingly I came away with the impression that it was somewhat frustrating and disheartening in that the rules of the game have changed. For years, military commanders have said that once conditions on the ground improve then troops can start to pull back. Today, General Petraeus said conditions on the ground have improved, but you know what? The troops have to stay. And I think if I was the mother or father of the one of the soldiers serving in Iraq, I'd be proud because he said they've achieved tremendous successes, but I'd also be upset that, if I listened to him, he'd say they would have to stay there in order to maintain that success.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How do conservatives every
April 8, 2008 - 23:20 ET by suzycreamcheeseHow do conservatives every win any election or get anything done with the deck stacked against them to begin with? The constant media negativity is just outrageous. I'd like to hear more Obamaisms and Hillaryisms. They also stumble and misspeak as most public speakers do, especially when they're being recorded and every word gone over with a fine-toothed comb.
Who the hell can keep up with the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?
Last year
April 8, 2008 - 23:30 ET by DEVILDOCMOMbho stated something to the effect 10,000 people died in a hurricane (or some natural disaster)...the problem was I do not believe anyone died. He never recanted the statement; oh yeah, that's right he's Saint Obama.
Hey DDM... Great
April 8, 2008 - 23:36 ET by bigtimerHey DDM...
Great point...I forgot about that...yep, it matters not if you are Obama, their new fearless leader.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Shiite vs Sunni
April 9, 2008 - 00:10 ET by austinhookObviously Iran is arming both Shiite and Sunni so as to gain their loyalties and keep both of them harassing us. Wouldn't you do that if you were Iran? So McCain is right, but it's just not politically correct to say so, at certain junctures. He'd trapped by not wanting to sound too crazy, but can't resist blurting out the truth when he gets impassioned.
Our job is to arm both sides too, but to get them fighting each other instead of us. If we can get the different Shiite groups to fight each other as well, that's even better. It's working reasonably well with Maliki and Sadr, and we should expect more of the same in the near future. The more Iraq is weakened the longer it will be before they make a nuisance of themselves again --as they are invariably inclined to do, given their culture. There is no way to puppet walk every single Iraqi to do what we want, and left to their own devices they would invariably just beome a big problem again.
Most of the rest of the debate is just window dressing, and misdirection.
Thanks!
April 9, 2008 - 09:32 ET by pbanks7For stating the obvious. I couldn't believe the media were making such a silly assertion. I can't believe I just wrote that.
The #1 terrorist nation is NOT supporting terrorism right next door against The Great Satan? Gimme a break. And he apologized? What a wimp. I'll vote against Hitlary or Barack H-word, but not for McCain.
Did you hear the one about the dyslexic that sold his soul to Santa?
Ridiculous
April 9, 2008 - 10:19 ET by BacchusExcuse me, our job is to arm Sadr's militia? I don't think so. That's absurd.
That's more nonsense.
I'll say there's been misdirection and you're one doing it.
This fight is no longer divided along sectarian lines. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds have formed a legitimate majority government. It's now a battle between the legitmate government and those still violently opposed to it, the lawful versus the lawless. The government will establish the rule of law across all of Iraq. That's its mandate. There's no arming of both sides at all.
Why, again.
April 8, 2008 - 23:21 ET by ScrapironWhy do democrats want to bring the troops home and rebuild the military. That would be a total waste of money since they refuse to use the military to protect the country. I guess they like them as decorations (to abuse) around the white house and congress. Every member of the military that has a term ending around Jan should be prepared to abandon the military before the democrats abandon them. Gen P and every member with retirement time in should submit they're retirement papers to be effective on Feb 1.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Rebuild the military?
April 9, 2008 - 12:44 ET by merlin61The Dems want to bring the troops home and
rebuild the military? They are the ones under
Clinton who downgraded the military and it
was the Rebubs under Bush and Rumsfeld who
had to rebuild it to where it is today. Clintons
cut the military budget to the max.
It must just kill them
April 8, 2008 - 23:26 ET by DEVILDOCMOMin the media that they cannot cite more deaths than in WW2, more wounded, etc. As far as McCain's verbal mistakes, would that the media focus on the multitude of bho's misstatements...it is so frustrating.
All typical and to be
April 8, 2008 - 23:27 ET by bigtimerAll typical and to be expected by the msm...I sure didn't expect anything different, CNN is doing the same thing at the moment.
They highlight what they want for their agenda...an all day two hearing panel....we get their own propaganda, it's who they are, what they do.
Maddening.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
apples/oranges WWII/Operation Iraqi Freedom
April 8, 2008 - 23:32 ET by mom_roxWilliams opened:
Therefore, his next sentence SHOULD HAVE BEEN
If one is going to compare the duration of the war, then the casualties should also be compared.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
Casualties
April 9, 2008 - 04:22 ET by austinhookTherefore, his next sentence SHOULD HAVE BEEN
</Quote>
Good thing the families of the 1 million dead Iraqis don't miss their loved ones the same way we do ours. Without that fortunate circumstance the war would much harder to justify.
Let's Not Forget
April 9, 2008 - 04:34 ET by Del DolemonteIn WW 2, unlike in this war, we carpet-bombed Japanese cities with napalm, killing thousands of innocent civilians, before dropping two atomic weapons that killed almost 200,000 more.
And we bonmbed Germany's Dresden back to the Stone Age.
We've done no such thing in this war.
A "million dead Iraqis?"
April 9, 2008 - 07:44 ET by Indiana JoeA "million dead Iraqis?" Really? This sounds like an exaggeration ot the famous "600,000 dead Iraqis" claim that went around a while ago. A claim that was thoroughly discredited, the methodology was completely flawed. You still hold to that number, when even Iraq denies it?
austinhook, Wow - 1
April 9, 2008 - 07:54 ET by hydrodynDMaustinhook,
Wow - 1 million dead Iraqis? In the course of five years? Doesn't that average to about 560 dead Iraqis - per day?
Makes you wonder why the MSM bothers to report about car bombs that only kill about half a dozen people. Where are the big juicy stories about American service men mowing down 560 citizens - on a daily basis?
Maybe you could "justify" your statistics?
Oh, and linking to a British ORB poll that's based on random sampling and unverified personal responses which conflates different causes of deaths isn't going to cut it.
Million dead Iraqis
April 10, 2008 - 04:31 ET by austinhookThe survey that came up with the 600,000 excess deaths, and the guess that it's up to a million by now, does not say that they were caused by US soldiers mowing down that many people. Most people know, but for those who hadn't followed it, it refers to the number of excess deaths attributed to the war, plus the other effects of destabilization of Iraqi society, in terms of public health. Note that most of the extra 30 years of longevity that we enjoy in modern society came about as a result of strong public health measures developed in the past 150 years or so. Destroy the infrastructure and you can easily kill a significant portion of the population over a few years.
Fact is, perhaps the majority of the excess deaths by direct violence, were not caused by US soldiers, but rather by communal strife, rebellion, terrorists, Al Qaeda, various militias etc. Our enemies in Iraq, and Iraqis have killed way more of their own than US bombs or guns have.
Nevertheless we bare responsibility for destablizing Iraq society, even if only by failing to anticipate the consequences of our actions. We share that responsibility even if Al Qaeda was just lying in wait for us to fall into the trap.
As far as those studies having been discredited, it's the descrediting of them that has been discredited, actually. The same methodology has been used successfully in less controversial instances, and has proven reasonably accurate -- more accurate than any other method. Of course, since they have political impact there have been avalanches of misinformation dumped upon them. Few mere mortals can get to the bottom of things like this when enough layers of spin have washed over them.
As to what the big media cover or don't cover -- well we all know it's what they make money on covering that determines their priorities. The result, in terms of what is covered, has a totally surreal relationship to what happens in fact.
You know this smells like
April 10, 2008 - 09:59 ET by Dan The Man 2You know this smells like crap and is crap. The USA is not responsible for 600K or 1 M deaths. Of course anyone who uses "Nevertheless we bare responsibility for destablizing Iraq society", unless you mean we are laying the real reason bare for all to see. The real reason being "communal strife, rebellion, terrorists, Al Qaeda, various militias etc. Our enemies in Iraq, and Iraqis have killed way more of their own than US bombs or guns have" and we are not to blame for any of it and do not bear any of the blame.
Perhaps you and President Clinton should ponder teh meaning of is?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Excess deaths?
April 10, 2008 - 12:31 ET by BacchusExcess deaths...as in, in excess of legitimate deaths? That's pure PC nonsense.
The Lancet Survey (Oct/06) made a ridiculous claim of 650,000 -excess?- deaths, however, the study has been thoroughly discredited since. As others have pointed out, it implies an average rate of over 500 deaths per day since the war started. Well, the worst single event that I can remember was al Qaeda's coordinated truck bombings near Mosul, last year, that murdered 500 Yazidi. One day, 500 deaths. So...I hereby challenge you to produce evidence that Iraqi deaths approached that level every day for 3.5 years (that's 1300 days, approximately up to the date the Lancet Study was released)? And by the way, Good Luck.
Lets do the analysis.
April 10, 2008 - 17:23 ET by BDOkay, time to do battle with ignorance.
The generally accepted population in the last census of Iraq was 27,499,638.
It is believed that roughly 1,500,000 or more have fled to Syria, . This reduces the population to roughly 26,000,000 avaialbe to suffer mortality.
It is believed that 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States. This reduces the avialable population for your mortality to 25,000,000.
100,000 Iraqi Shiites fled into neighboring Iran, reducing the available population to 25,900,000.
It is beleived that 90,000 + have fled to the Western Hemisphere. This reduces the population to 25,810,000 available.
It is believed that a similar number have fled to Europe/Africa, and slightly smaller number have fled to Asia. Lets just ball park the population of Iraq at 25,000,000 and begin with that number.
If 1 million Iraqis had died since the War had begun, we would see a mortaility rate of roughly 1 : 25 or 4% for five years. Roughly a full percentage point per year. Then WHY does the accepted death rate in Iraq hang at 5.25 per 1000?
Hmmmmmm.........
We will get back to that.
If one of out 25 people is killed in such a large population, logic dictates that it would not occur in a manner that would be uniform across the nation. Casualties would be expected to be higher in the four provinces that have violence compared to the dozen or so that have NO violence. So, it should be expected that in the Bgdhad area casualty rates would be 1:15 or 1:10 based on avaialable population in comparison to a significantly smaller mortality rate elsewhere.
There are no neighborhoods that have suffered this casualty rate from any cause.
NOT HAPPENING BABY!!!!!!!!!
Give it up and try again.
Death Rates in Iraq
April 13, 2008 - 02:00 ET by austinhookHey BD -- thanks for the thoughtful comment. I will go back and study those reports more closely. So I won't try to reply in depth now.
Here's some top of my head considerations for you to ponder meanwhile:
If 1 mega excess deaths corresponds to 1:25 of the population then 2.5 meg exiles corresponds to 1:10 or a full 10% of the population, plus, I understand there were about the same number internally displaced, so say 20% of the population had to move. I am sure you will concede that there are neighborhoods in Baghdad that have lost 80% or more of their original population since they have had to flee elsewhere. Given that kind of turmoil, how can we conclude that those same areas did not have mortality rates approaching 10%?
For people to move from their established homes takes an awful lot of pressure. I understand if you poll Iraqi refugees in Syria most of them have lost family members, and the ones that made it to Syria, more often than not, had to flee for their lives. If, half of the excess deaths were due to direct violence and the other half due to indirect effects of the war then the numbers begin to meld. OK, this is very sketchy on my part, but worth a think.
Well Austinhook
April 13, 2008 - 05:48 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWell Austinhook, if there are 1 million 'excess' deaths in Iraq, why are the gravediggers suffering such a loss of business? Shouldn't they be working overtime?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
austinhook, The original
April 10, 2008 - 19:37 ET by hydrodynDMaustinhook,
The original comment in this thread by mom_rox clearly referred to "military casualties". Not "excess deaths" due to "public health" issues that may or may not be a direct result of the US's actions in Iraq. So your stat of "1 million dead Iraqis" was put out there by you in that context and it was in that context that I made my sarcastic post since your stat obviously doesn't apply.
You might have also picked up on the part of my post about making use of a study that "conflates different causes". It would have saved you the time and effort of writing your first paragraph.
With regard to responsibility - that isn't the issue. The issue I brought up was the validity of the number you were putting out there.
Regarding "methodology" - maybe you can help me out with this. There seem to me to be basically two approaches to estimating the number of deaths that are a direct result of our actions in Iraq. You spend years trying to verify each death and cause of death directly via records or you take a statistical approach where you randomly sample the population to get your information. What other methods are there?
Yes, a statistical approach can be accurate - but it can also be very inaccurate since it's predicated on a number of assumptions which depend on the details of the approach. Not only do you assume that your sample is an accurate reflection of the whole populations (and if you know you can't assume that, you might adopt some corrective methods which are also basically assumptions) but, as in the case of the ORB poll, the information is based on personal testimony - so who knows how accurate the raw data is?
I find it funny that you seem to dismiss criticism of large-number Iraq death toll studies as being politically motivated when you are the one that brought up a number irrelevant to mom_rox's original comment for... political reasons. That aside...
Your final comment "well we all know it's what they make money on covering that determines their prioritie" seems odd, given the purpose of this site.
Death Rates in Iraq
April 13, 2008 - 02:28 ET by austinhookThanks for your comment, hydrodynDM,
Sorry if I reply beyond the context there. I so often see considerations that are based solely upon the loss of American lives that it shocks me, and perhaps I am a bit oversensitive to it. In as much as we claim what we are doing in Iraq is doing the world a favor, it seems odd to only count the cost in American lives. Not that I didn't personally react like punched in the gut when the towers came down, and when I didn't know how many of my friends or associates went down with them. I care about American lives first, but I can't only stop there.
Now, my impression was that the original Johns Hopkins study was not politically motivated. However, that does not mean at all that the results are not politically important. Using such a study for the basis of discussion doesn't make it retroactively politically biased. It might be, but that must be shown independently of how it is discussed later.
Finally, my comment on the well know corrosive influences on the news we see in the mass media is based on personal experiences of being in the middle of things reported on, and long observation. I don't think Newsbusters was the first to notice it, but I do applaud Newsbusters for much of it's work. Of course, I know the problem is much broader than just conservative vs liberal slants. I do recognize many consistant "urban myth" types of themes that seem to never die out in the media. And Newsbusters does a pretty good job from it's direction. So go for it!
Even if we assume the absurd
April 9, 2008 - 08:55 ET by Free ThinkerEven if we assume the absurd 1 million number were accurate, does that justifiy us leaving and allowing the islamofascists to kill another 1 million? Austin, do you think they would be content to just stay in the middle east and keep killing their own or do you think that may embolden them to go west and kill Americans instead? The fact is this is generational war in terms of time and if we stop fighting it now the costs for future generations to fight it will dwarf today's costs. Freedom comes with a price. I would suggest you scroll down the page and watch the video about Micheal Monsoor and then say a prayer of thanks that men like him protect our freedom to even have this debate.
Good thing the families
April 9, 2008 - 10:24 ET by BacchusMore of your misinformation, sir?
1 million dead - that's a lie
April 9, 2008 - 11:49 ET by mattmBesides, since when do liberals give a crap about people dying? If it were up to Libs, Lenin would have succeeded in his quest a long time ago.
Thank God people like Reagan and Bush are willing to suffer unpopularity in order to stand up to tyrants and terrorists.
"It would not matter if 3/4 of the human race perished; the important thing is that the remaining 1/4 be communist." - Lenin
Hey they forgot to mention something
April 9, 2008 - 00:18 ET by Dave DAnybody else noticed? We've have 6 month of relative calm. (Don't believe me? Go look at icasualties.com.) Hell, the longest we've gone with calm at these levels was 6 months starting in May 03. (Admittedly after a 1 month spike things calmed down again for months.) If we go one more month this would be the longest streak of calm during the Iraq War. Wonder if any network will notice? (Oh who am I kidding? Of course they won't. They still report the Shinseki myth so why would I think they'd get things right.)
Money
April 9, 2008 - 00:58 ET by GraysonWhat I find interesting is that the mainstream media has recently decided to talk about the cost of the war daily, and uses this as a reason not to be in the war. However, I have NEVER seen the mainstream media even hint at the cost of the universal healthcare they are so fond of. They only refer to it as "free health care".
Thats right. They told us
April 9, 2008 - 03:22 ET by kgThats right. They told us the US has spent well over a trillion dollars.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Ok, so these msm a@@hats,
April 9, 2008 - 01:18 ET by gfrrmanhave already declared the war lost. That's their call, however, delusional. I will therefore declare the war on "poverty", Gov't education and the biggie, the ponzie scheme known as Social Security, to be lost causes......now will they cut and run from those? Nah...but I'm just askin'!!!!! Or as "they say"....axin!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Hello, John McCain, stumblebum...
April 9, 2008 - 03:09 ET by JWFRemember the early days with GWB, he kept tripping over his own tongue too, mispronunciating words, picking the wrong version of other nucular words. I thought it humanized him. But no, guess what his caricature become: GWB - idiot.
Looks like we will not have to go too far to see where they will go with McCain's caricature: McCain - Old idiot.
Thanks for watching
April 9, 2008 - 05:35 ET by 10ksnookerSomeone has to write the report.
Okay, so let's compare
April 9, 2008 - 08:05 ET by Indiana JoeAmerica's involvement in WWII was less than 4 years, in fact. But that's because we had our heads in the sand. Pretty much the rest of the world (and we know how the libs love to give weight to their opinions) considers WWII to have started in 1939 at the latest. So, we're really still a year short of the 6 years it really lasted.
And what did WWII cost in modern dollars? Gee, they forgot to mention that! Militarily, and all the money we spent on "nation building" afterwards, of course.
And how long did it take before our presence in the former Axis countries fell below 162,000. Have we even reached that low of a level yet?
Most of the reason we didn't want to get involved was "they didn't attack us." Until Pearl Harbor, that is. Ah, but Al-Queda did attack us. At a non-military site, with civilian casualties of 3,000. Can't forget that, can we?
I think most WWII commanders would have LOVED to have casualties of 4,000 over the course of 5 years.
You want to compare? So, let's compare!
Cherry-picking morons.
inconsistent selective comparison
April 9, 2008 - 11:03 ET by mom_roxJoe, my earlier comment was trying to point out that Brian Williams was using "inconsistent selective comparison" in his broadcast. He chose to use a comparison only when it suited him (which is why this qualified as a NewsBusters item).
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
G.O.E. Visited Congress also - - and left a message
April 9, 2008 - 09:17 ET by JayTeeInstead of yelling at my TV again, I joined in Monday with G.O.E. and went around to the Congressional Offices in DC and delivered a message from "the People".
We had a Blue Star Mom with us, and we had a retired Marine in his Old full Dress Uniform (outdated but very Marine) that he could still fit in, and instead of 1,000 of people on the Street, we filled the Congressperson's office . . . which was very effective.
Since the Offices of Congress list the State/Name of the Congressperson, you walked into offices that you had no idea if they were Dems./Repubs, but if they had CNN on TV, or they had FOX news turned on, you could pretty well figure it out.
Some Congress Idiots get their info from CNN....all day long Brain Washing for the Staff.
Anyhow, if you read the Site up above, you will see we were making points before NBC/ABC/CBS could create the Bias view of the General.
What the General has done, will go down as one of the Famous Military operations of all times.
We could have funded...
April 9, 2008 - 09:36 ET by Joe C.FIVE(!) Iraqs for what has been spent on Medicare over the same period ($425 billion PER YEAR) - talk about a waste of money. And that doesn't even include Medicaid by the states.
Watch out Joe - -you're introducing "Perspective"
April 9, 2008 - 09:57 ET by JayTeeThere is no "OTHER" side of the Iraq Issue as presented by the Islamic News Networks . . . ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN
McCain Should Repeat the Shite mistake over and over again
April 9, 2008 - 11:20 ET by JayTeeMcCain Should Repeat the Shite mistake over and over again....
1. He's Guaranteed Coverage by the MSM
2. It's the ONLY mistake by McCain that the MSM can cover
3. The American people will keep seeing/hearing the Mistake over and over, and realize the truth about Bias in the Media, and the "Only Cover McCain's Mistakes" of the MSM Bias.
4. Some day, the MSM will Question McCain about WHY he keeps repeating the same mistake.....and his Answer will be....(Your comments for McCain goes here)
Brian Williams needs a brain transplant!
April 9, 2008 - 15:49 ET by IamTinmanThe US still has troops in Korea 50 years after the armistice. We have had troops and bases in Japan and Germany for some 60 years. We still have troops in Bosnia and many other places on this globe long past the ending of active hostilities. In fact if one looks at the major conflicts in history only the losing side withdraws rapidly. Does Brian recommend we lose? Silly question I guess.
And why are these guys talking to Joe Biden for heavens sake? The man's a plaigerist! He never had an original thought in his life!!!