On his program last night Fox News host Bill O'Reilly blasted his cable competitors for their "delight in showing Iraqi violence," a product of an editorial mindset at CNN and MSNBC that "want[s] Americans to think badly of President Bush."
"And that strategy has succeeded," he added.
O'Reilly's words came in response to remarks made by CNN president Jon Klein who accused FNC of dialing back Iraq coverage as violence in Iraq has increased.
"It illustrates the danger of cheerleading for one particular point or another because they were obviously cheerleaders for the war," He told the AP. "When the war went badly they had to dial back coverage because it didn't fit their preconceived story lines."
Klein was referring to a study by a leftish group called the Project for Excellence in Journalism which stated that MSNBC covered Iraq twice as much as FNC. CNN covered it almost twice as much according to the study.
O'Reilly did not dispute that Fox News covered Iraq less than its competitors, speaking for his own show, O'Reilly said he did so because the reports CNN and MSNBC tend to air add nothing to the story and help with terrorist PR:
Now we've done hundreds of Iraq reports on this program, as you know. But we don't do the carnage du jour. We don't highlight every terrorist attack because we learn nothing from that. And that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do. I mean, come on, does another bombing in Tikrit mean anything other than war is hell? No, it does not.
In my opinion, CNN, and especially MSNBC, delight in showing Iraqi violence because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush. And that strategy has succeeded.
So their Iraqi coverage is more political than informational, again in my opinion. Could be wrong about CNN. I'm not wrong about the committed left wing crew over at NBC.
O'Reilly's overall point is spot-on. The details are a little trickier, however. When you look at the coverage as MRC has for the entire duration of the war, you do see a strongly negative tone toward the war effort. Where that comes from in the more liberal networks (everyone except FNC) is a complicated story, a combination of anti-Republican suspicion, a general dislike of American casualties, and the old "if it bleeds it leads" mentality. Throw in a dash of Bush hatred and you get the persistently defeatist coverage mix.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"It is said that by remo
June 13, 2007 - 16:56 ET by mattm"It is said that by removing Saddam or the Taliban—regimes that were authoritarian but also kept a form of order—the plight of Iraqis and Afghans has worsened and terrorism has been allowed to grow. This is a seductive but dangerous argument. Work out what it really means. It means that because these reactionary and evil forces will fight hard, through terrorism, to prevent those countries and their people getting on their feet after the dictatorships are removed, we should leave the people under the dictatorship. It means our will to fight for what we believe in is measured by our enemy's will to fight us, but in inverse proportion. That is not a basis on which you ever win anything... The truth is that the conflict in Iraq has mutated into something directly fuelled by the same elements that confront us everywhere. Yet a large, probably the larger, part of Western opinion would prefer us to withdraw. That is the extraordinary dulling of our senses that the terrorism has achieved... There is no alternative to fighting this menace wherever it rears its head. There are no demands that are remotely negotiable. It has to be beaten. Period."
—British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Dan Abrams angrily responded on msnbc last night
June 13, 2007 - 18:33 ET by SportPoliticsDan Abrams had a psycho rage fest responding to O'Reilly last night.
I understand why Abrams went insano against O'Reilly last night.
You should have seen it last night, they had 3 people , Dan Abrams(host) as one of them fighting against ONE guy on the side of O'Reilly, after O'reilly's comment that they are against GWB in their number of bombs or deaths everyday in Iraq war coverage.
Abrams tried as he might to scream it's out of respect for soldiers... LOL...and shrieked O'Reilly owes everyone an apology--lol- awww poor baby danny- and the single guest of the 4 - pointed out it's 3 to 1 right now, which fits their pattern so well. rofl - It was GREAT.
It was great to see that raging left wing liar screeching over the one guest he opposed, the one that wasn't a flaming liberal.
LOL - Dan Arbams - since you had to appear - it is now completely clear to me that O'Reilly is 100% correct in what he said....
Too bad, you were exposed, and because the exposure was exactly true and correct, you raged on and proved it to be just that, 100% true and correct.
I'm sure you all just cannot help yourselves, as you mass lemming and punch the D chad at your voting booths. I know O'Reilly is 100% correct, thanks to you , Dan Abrams.
What do we get out of the very first as they open death count on US troops from the psycho left msm ? NOTHING - except seeing how much they are blubbering idiots chanting for the enemy and putting down the USA and Bush.
They don't even give a count EVER of how many enemy are killed, not even an estimate- then they whine the US military doesn't put it out...
They are soooooo far beyond the sickness O'Reilly pointed out, but there is no doubt O'Reilly is 100% correct. We don't learn a thing by it, and they are merely playing it as a crybaby propaganda self-defeating rage against the USA and the troops and out military and our national goals.
You'd know otherwise if they blamed any deaths on the enemy, or counted their losses, but all they do is ignore it or make fun of it in their commentary: "What is this the third leader of AQ in Iraq that has been killed?"...
It's way too clear they hate Bush and the war in Iraq, and the raging bugeyed blabbling Abrams - got so angry at being pegged, it was great...
Then, the weak kneed liar in the wrong that he is, he pulled a 3 to 1 panel for self support... LOL - confirming his bias again !
LOL - What a left wing freak liar. You looked pathetic crying about O'Reilly. You're losing, and boy oh brother what crybabies you are about it.
Another bombing, more often t
June 13, 2007 - 17:21 ET by crsheddAnother bombing, more often than not, means more American soldiers dead. Evidently, to BOR, that is not worth reporting, it's just the 'carnage du jour'. BOR and Fox spend a LOT of time on Anna Nichole, Paris, Britney, etc, but spend less and less time on Iraq. Can ANYBODY explain that?
"Another bombing, more
June 13, 2007 - 17:57 ET by ckc1227"Another bombing, more often than not, means more American soldiers
dead. Evidently, to BOR, that is not worth reporting, it's just the
'carnage du jour'. BOR and Fox spend a LOT of time on Anna Nichole,
Paris, Britney, etc, but spend less and less time on Iraq. Can ANYBODY
explain that?"
It's easy to explain: ratings. People are tired of hearing about Iraq day in and day out 24-7. Aparently CNN and NBC haven't figured that out yet. Fox has, which helps explain why they continue to crush the other 2 in the ratings.
And, let's be honest, it isn't less and less time spent on Iraq, and every time a soldier dies, you hear about it at Fox, just like every other news outlet.
Who's to say the other networks are devoting the right amount of time on Iraq coverage? Again, since Fox dominates them, I'd argue Fox is the one devoting the right amount of time, not the other way around.
There's a difference between reporting on Iraq like Fox, and bordering on orgasmic pleasure with every piece of negative information that comes out of there(multiples if it involves troop deaths)simply because you know it will further your cause in getting a Democrat in power next go round.
It's funny though how it's never an issue when these other networks devote lot's of time to the Anna-Paris-Britney stories.
"Klein was referring to a study
by a leftish group called the Project for Excellence in Journalism
which stated that MSNBC covered Iraq twice as much as FNC. CNN covered
it almost twice as much according to the study."
Twice as much coverage overall as Fox, but I GUARANTEE that they have reported half as much as Fox on the positives going on over there.
It's easy to explain: ratings
June 14, 2007 - 16:25 ET by LeonIt's easy to explain: ratings. People are tired of hearing about Iraq day in and day out 24-7.
And that's the problem. What you've written makes me want to vomit.
People are tired of hearing about Iraq day in and day out? Our country is at war! Our soldiers are dying daily and you're tired of hearing about it!!!!
This is absolutely insane. Seriously, you sicken me. I feel physically ill.
And you're probably rabidly PRO-WAR and you're going to tell me you don't want to hear about it anymore! You that are pro-war should be forced to watch Iraq coverage all day, everyday so you can see what it is you're supporting. The reality of the situation.
Although that would probably make it harder to support the war, so you'd rather just ignore it and go on living your life. PATHETIC.
You know who isn't tired of hearing about the war?
THE TROOPS & THEIR LOVED ONES
By reporting every single bom
June 13, 2007 - 19:54 ET by HypocriteHaterBy reporting every single bombing that happens to our soldiers strives to weaken the resolve of Americans so they will insist that the we pull out of Iraq. Guess what? That's exactly what our enemy, who we're fighting in Iraq, wants us to do.
So guess what our enemy does? They keep bombing our soldiers, little by little, hoping to further weaken our resolve until we leave. We have the majority leader in the Senate, Dingy Harry, telling our enemy we have "lost" in Iraq. How can you justify these actions as being anything other than traitorous? I'll never understand how you libs can't grasp this concept. I hold CNN, Dingy Harry, and all the other anti-war democrats responsible for any further deaths of our soldiers since they have done nothing but strengthen the resolve of our enemy, who are already counting on us being another paper tiger.
You're exactly right. It wo
June 14, 2007 - 07:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou're exactly right. It worked in Vietnam. FOX, evidently, doesn't have the same agenda as the others, which is to see that we lose in Iraq.
So, if you want up to the minute body counts, watch the other networks.
crsshedd, the explaination is
June 14, 2007 - 07:43 ET by dscottcrsshedd, the explaination is the failure of CNN and the rest of the MSM to provide any balance on reporting of those bombings. Tell us, can you remember any MSM reporting that covers the human interest angle on those who were blown up? How many opportunities did the MSM have to report on the mourning of those whose loved ones died as a result of a terrorist bombing in the market place? You think the survivors would not be demanding all the al Qaeda thugs be rounded up and the US soldiers are needed to help in that effort? So no wonder why the MSM refuses to report from that angle. By simply reporting any bombing as a numbers game as though the US were responsible for it by not preventing it, the MSM is complicit in promoting terrorism.
Let me give you a good analogy of what the MSM is doing by their unbalanced reporting in Iraq. This would be like reporting there was another murder in New Orleans today, bringing the death toll to 82 for the year (I read it in Pravda so it must be true). All factually true, btw. Then turning around and implying that the murder rate is so high because of police presence in the City. The proof of this being that ever since the police occupied the City, there have been murders. Then criticizing the federal, state and local authorities for ramping up the numbers of policemen to quell the murder rate. The obvious answer is to pull the police out of the city to spare the innocent citizens of New Orleans by the provocation of the police presence in the city, after all, the murders wouldn't be there if the police weren't there. The gangs knowing the MSM is reporting in this manner, step up their drive by shooting and muggings to emphasize the point made by the MSM. Let's face it, the police have had over 200 years to stop crimes like murder, they have failed to stop it and we should just pull out of New Orleans and learn to live with it.
Of course, no one would do something like this on a US city, however, this is exactly what the MSM is doing in Iraq, BOR has put his finger in the eye of the left and now they are screaming.
Hmmm, kind of what happened in New York City prior to Guiliani becoming mayor and who was it that attempted to block any action cleaning up the city the entire time of Guiliani's term? The liberal Democrats.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Well done. I would bet that
June 14, 2007 - 07:54 ET by Sergeant ROCKWell done. I would bet that the MSM includes the number of insurgents killed in their 'Iraqis killed' number, to imply that they were civilians and not combatants.
How about you stop crying abo
June 14, 2007 - 07:56 ET by LeonHow about you stop crying about the media and start demanding a strategy from the leaders in Iraq?
Why don't we start demanding some results in this war? It's been the same thing over and over and over again for the past 3 years with little progress.
Last time I checked the media weren't fighting in the war. Blaming them is pathetic. Demand action from our leaders and stop playing the blame game.
Again, you demonstrate your
June 14, 2007 - 08:00 ET by Sergeant ROCKAgain, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of military matters and demonstrate that your 'facts' come from a biased media determined to undermine our efforts in Iraq - Good job, moron.
You want LEADERS to LEAD? How
June 14, 2007 - 09:13 ET by Chidi NwachukhuYou want LEADERS to LEAD? How crazy is that?
You want LEADERS to LEAD? How
June 14, 2007 - 09:13 ET by Chidi NwachukhuYou want LEADERS to LEAD? How crazy is that?
Leon, the problem with Iraq a
June 14, 2007 - 09:29 ET by bassndudeLeon, the problem with Iraq and the media and your interpretation of what is going on is that it is shaded the color of the MSM's choice. You dont really have a clear picture of who is doing what there. You dont have access to all of the information, only what CNN, MSNBC and the others want you to know. You are correct in the fact that the media is not fighting this war, but they are not covering it well either. The reporters covering the war, have no military experience, no tactical experience and no experience in intelligence. They sit in the green zone, sipping their wine and ice tea and wait for someone to tell them something they can write about. When the MSM fails to report compentently all that is going on, and stop tainting the stories with opinion, thats when you will see what is really going on there. But now, you just kidding yourself to think you have even an inkling of the Iraq situation.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You're trying to reason wit
June 14, 2007 - 09:33 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou're trying to reason with the unreasonable? I admire your effort.
Ya gotta try to explain thing
June 14, 2007 - 09:36 ET by bassndudeYa gotta try to explain things...first...then if they refuse to learn, you just assume they are to far gone, or were dropped on their heads when they were young.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Leon:Clearing a nation of an
June 14, 2007 - 12:44 ET by BDLeon:
Clearing a nation of an insurgency takes one KEY ingredient which you seem to not wish to part with - TIME!
There is no fast or easy way to do this. It must be done and we will take casualties doing it. No more bombing from 32,000 feet ala Wesley Clark....
For a decade our enemies insisted we were beatable because we lacked the will to commit forces to a ground and take casualties. Osama told his minions that we would run from the middle east just like we had from Vietnam, Beirut, and SOmalia.
Well, we have so far proven to him that CONSERVATIVE america will not run, and he has allied himself with LIBERAL america who will run, which is more to his liking.....
Time? Time limits are for R
June 14, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Sergeant ROCKTime? Time limits are for Republicans - get a grip!
CRSHEDD:Did the US media repo
June 14, 2007 - 12:37 ET by BDCRSHEDD:
Did the US media report the death of every US solider killed in the hedgerows of Normandy in late june 1944? Did each newspaper run a column that listed by name and birthplace everysingle casualty from Iwo Jima the day after they occurred?
Did Ernie Pyle ever write a piece about how miserable the casualties were as they died?
The answer to each of these is a resounding NO!
In the only column that I can recall in which Ernie Pyle commented on a US casualty was a bery moving story regrading a young company commander from Belton Texas in the 34th Infantry Division and how his soldiers very movingly brought his body down off the mountain. Today, Newsweek would interview the families and especially look for family members to rail against the war.
We have come far in the wrong direction as a society.
"...you do see a strongl
June 13, 2007 - 17:27 ET by ThisnThat"...you do see a strongly negative tone toward the war effort. Where that comes from in the more liberal networks (everyone except FNC) is a complicated story". I think, Matt, that this has its roots in the Vietnam war time period when newscasters began to see the power of television, various elements of our society allowed radicals to infiltrate, the colleges began to attract more and more liberal students and professors, and our society became permissive and afraid. I truely don't understand the liberal mindset; but I do understand about peer pressure. If you've got a particular mindset, it's very, very difficult to break out of it. Positive Iraqi coverage is not only suppressed; but the individuals who try it are castigated in the newsrooms, by their friends, and by the calls and e-mails they receive from like-minded people. Conservatives are uncomfortable about making waves -- libs are not, and so even if they are a minority base, they are vocal and active.
I think we need a complete grass-roots turnaround within these institutions. Fox news is a start; talk radio has really taken hold; blogs like NB add to the mix. You can see how scared these libs are of such items. They are very, very afraid of opposing opinion because they do not know how to defeat logical arguments. So they try to boycott Fox; cancel talk radio; and spam the websites. They are very weak one-on-one, so we need to continue to try to separate them from their "group-think" support systems.
Some say we didn't learn the
June 13, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Chris NormanSome say we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam. I disagree. The Media learned that if they concentrated on the setbacks, the mistakes, and the deaths -they could turn the public against a war they supported at the outset. My question is, does the public support a war only when things are going really well and really fast? Beyond my frustration with the Media's effort to undermine the war, is the public's fickleness - I suppose some believe a war should only be as long as maybe a television mini-series - and that's depressing.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Your right
June 13, 2007 - 20:27 ET by E4PukeYour absolutly right. Right now I do not blame politicians for lack of support or the media, we all knew what they would do at the outset. I went to that hellhole in 03 when everyone had flags waving yellow ribbons flying, now everyone wants to act like they never supported it and never were for it. I think the american people are in a state of pussification at this time and cannot be bothered with anything other than paris hilton or lindsay lohan who is very hot. If only we could get them in uniform and on the front line then it would be a win win situation.
You know what's ironic and
June 13, 2007 - 18:25 ET by kevcadYou know what's ironic and an odd juxatposition? The Factor and Countdown air at the same time and we all know which is viewed more.
Last night, Dan Abrams was substituting for Joe Scarborough. He was trying to do a smear job on Bill and the "come on, does another bombing in Tikrit mean anything" phrase to mean that Bill doesn't care anymore about what happens.
The deeper thing
June 13, 2007 - 19:49 ET by reelman46I maintain this "war on wars" by the modern liberal is mostly due to the fact they require megabillions. It pains liberals greatly to see $100 billion that could create dependency-buy votes "wasted" trying to free a people.
On a few rare occasions the frustrated modern liberal lets it slip with a comment supporting the theory above. They recover quickly to return to the "standard public reasons".... people die in wars, wars are imperfect, we are wrong again and such. Follow the money ...because there are no sensible moral principles in modern liberalism to follow.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D.
(theconservativecrawfish)
Regarding those new banner ad
June 13, 2007 - 19:45 ET by Atomic CrusaderRegarding those new banner ads placed inbetween blog posts - they are really annoyoing and hopefully not a permanent fixture. Ads are fine, but this is a bit much.
I agree but...
June 13, 2007 - 20:30 ET by E4PukeI agree but i love this website and anything they do to make money and keep producing the same quality product that i enjoy is cool with me.
Apparently Dan and Keith shar
June 13, 2007 - 20:37 ET by nicksmith112Apparently Dan and Keith share a brain!
Nothing is funnier than Krazy Keith railing about how Fox regurgitates the talking points of the Bush administration.
Olberloon usually says this with NO opposing view points on his show or in his special comments to the kos-kids!
Fox Doesn't Air Terrorist Programming
June 13, 2007 - 22:05 ET by Lame CherryDear Mr. Jon Klein,
This will be difficult for you to comprehend, but the rest of the world understands the simple message, "You do not air Napoleon propaganda, Bismark propaganda, Hitler propaganda, Saddam propaganda or terrorist's blowing things up and providing CNN and MSNBC footage propaganda as it makes you, Mr. Klein a propagandist".
Mr. Klein, why do you think terrorists blow things up, especially Muslims? It is because it will get great coverage from your cable network. These terrorists are Islamofascits and as I exposed Islamocommunists. They hate Muslims as much as westerners and you are causing innocent people to be murdered, because you think it will install a liberal in the White House by making President Bush look bad.
It is no coincidence that Lara Logan of CBS posts original al Qaeda footage of a massacre no more than your Green Zone flunkies are by "miracle" safe to cover carnage as long as by another "miracle" this al Qaeda massacre ends up on your cable network.
Historically, the word is traitor or collaborator which define what the main stream media is accomplishing against the United States of America. It is a coup against a sitting government and it is outright slaughter of United States soldiers.
You are making money off of this, making a coup against an elected government and causing a slaughter of thousands in Iraq and now thousands of US soldiers. Your liberalism is about to cause the death of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East as the enemies of liberty in the Islamocommunist shills of Russia and China in Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria now think because of your propaganda they can remove America and the Israeli state from the Middle East.
You, Mr. Klein like all "get out of Iraq" collaborators are about to cause a war in which WMD will be used, the same WMD which Saddam smuggled out of Iraq into Syria, Lebanon and Iran.
The horror which is coming is your fault. You are to blame and when the carnage fills your CNN screens.......you may never have read this, but thousands of others have and will know you are the cause along with all the MSM.
It wasn't Fox. It wasn't George Bush. It wasn't Don Rumsfeld. It wasn't Dick Cheney. It was YOU, Mr. Jon Klein. You will have caused the destruction of huge populations in the Middle East.
The Truth will always prevail. You are to blame.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Beautiful.Saved for future r
June 13, 2007 - 23:38 ET by stratmanBeautiful.
Saved for future reference.
Every day the Left is more emboldened, and, bit by bit, they publically reveal their true intent and agenda. Their words, actions and behaviours will come back to bite them in the ass one day when their utopian visions are proven (again) as false as their logic.
Socialism does not work.
Communism does not work.
Hippie communes do not work.
Terrorists are not just mothers and fathers.
650,000 (whatever) dead Iraqi's were not caused by Americans.
Islamofascists do not just want to be left alone.
Global Warming due to Human Pollution is not a fact - off topic but contemparary to the illusionary lib mindset.
Things you wont see on msm ab
June 14, 2007 - 03:29 ET by well99Things you wont see on msm about Iraq.
Hospitals,schools that have been built by our troops.Medical personel giving aid to the Iraqi people.Iraqis people that do like Americans.My brother was at Fallejah and said the reason he didnt want to leave was because of the people.MSM doesnt bother with that.
Such coverage is hardly eff
June 14, 2007 - 07:13 ET by Sergeant ROCKSuch coverage is hardly effective when your goal is to undermine our foreign policy. (See also; Vietnam War)
The news is supposed to cover
June 14, 2007 - 07:47 ET by LeonThe news is supposed to cover reality. The current reality of Iraq, unfortunately, is one rife with violence.
Sorry that's the situation. What are they supposed to do? Find the ONE school that built in the past 8 months? Find the ONE Iraqi battalion that got trained in the past year?
ONE school? How long were y
June 14, 2007 - 07:57 ET by Sergeant ROCKONE school? How long were you in Iraq anyway? You stupidly demonstrate that there IS bias in the MSM - Good job!
Ok SGT.Find me some documenta
June 14, 2007 - 07:59 ET by LeonOk SGT.
Find me some documentation detailing the AMAZING infrastructure programs we've completed.
Thanks in advance for your sleuthing, b/c I'm sure it will take time.
Do your own research, jack@
June 14, 2007 - 08:03 ET by Sergeant ROCKDo your own research, jack@ss. I was there and YOU were not. Even so, if you don't hear it from Wolf Blitzer or Olbermann, you wouldn't believe it anway.
So, Leon, are you real or are you just full of hate?
June 14, 2007 - 08:23 ET by acaiguanaSo, Leon, are you real or are you just full of hate?
There is violence in Iraq. Who is to fault? Are you one of those guiys who believe that those people just can't do democracy?
Your attitude of one school is indicitive of a mindset that does not allow for reality to get reported. I've met a lot of people like you and the negativity is rife. I'd say the left in America was rife with negativity.
The economy is unsustainable. The oil is running out. The atmosphere is polluted to unrecoverable limits. The climate is changing and its all my fault.
Are you really so ignorant about the Middle East that you don't really understand the nature of the enemy. If you were a student of military affairs the first thing you would lean is that you have to know your enemy.
The enemy in Iraq is primarily imported from Al Qaeda followers, Iran and Syria. The people of Iraq have been supporting a crack down on these interlopers over the past six months.
I guess your solution is to cut and run. That would be the coward's solution.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Aca,Your post was an excellen
June 14, 2007 - 08:45 ET by LeonAca,
Your post was an excellent example of the pitfalls of assumption. My mouth's still full from all the words you put in it.
Since your entire post is unfounded and essentially worthless, I'll focus on the ONE actual argument that you made.
So the PRIMARY ENEMY in Iraq is Al Qaeda followers? Are you out of your mind? Do you have any evidence detailing the composition of the insurgency? I've only ever seen one report (conducted by CSIS) and they estimated that only 3 - 4% of the insurgency was foreign fighters.
SOOOOO the primary enemy is not al qaeda, it's Iraqis. And the misconception that we're fighting foreign fighters is exceptionally dangerous to our strategy. The people we're fighting are the people we went over there to liberate. The sooner you accept that, the sooner we can develop an effective strategy.
Either you can't comprehend or don't read.
June 14, 2007 - 08:52 ET by acaiguanaEither you can't comprehend or don't read.
My point to you was that without the external support the internal issues would be much easier to deal with. The external support, particularly from Iran but also from Al Qaeda and Syria is driving the attacks on Americans.
The attacks between the Sunni and Shia religious sects are not just simply internal to the country.
Your continued use of the word insurgency belies your ignorance.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Insurgency: nounan organize
June 14, 2007 - 08:59 ET by LeonInsurgency:
noun
an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict
Sounds like Iraq to me. Your failure to acknowledge the insurgency and your attempt to hang the accountability on foreign influence demonstrates a willful ignorance.
PS What you meant to say was that my continued use of the word insurgency belies my intelligence. In attempting to insult me, you've actually complimented me. If you're going to use big boy words, use them properly.
Leon, your attempt to defend your misapplication of ideas...
June 14, 2007 - 09:14 ET by acaiguanaLeon, your attempt to defend your misapplication of ideas is fascinating. First, the Sunni/Shia conflict is not an insurgency. It is a sectarian war for dominance of the territories within Iraq. If one wins, the other dies. That may fit the definition of insurgency, but it obscures the reality of the enemy in Iraq.
The enemy in Iraq is complicated by the Bathists who scattered about after the fall of Saddam. The Al Qaeda who see Iraq as an opportunity to replace Afghanistan as their playground. The Iranians who hate Sunnis and the Syrians who see Iraq as the key to the management of the Middle East by Western Power.
Iraq is a pitiful country that needs peace more than it needs to be a pawn of despotic and theocratic rulers running amok because the US cuts and runs.
Your realism is tinged with negativity. I firmly believe that Democracy is possible in Iraq, however I think the current form of its constitution needs quite a bit of work. The bombings have been fueled by support from Iran and Syria, this is a fact.
Your intentional obfuscation of the situation by simply calling the terrorists insurgents and the religious sectarian strife participants, insurgents. does not add to the understanding of the region, the conflicting goals of the participants nor does it do anything to pin the tails on the Iranian or the Syrian donkeys.
Iraq is a violent place in 3 of the provences. The progress being made in the other parts of the country is conveniently ignored by the MSM and obviously, you.
This discussion is about coverage of the war in Iraq and the lack of any positive news coverage aside from the negative body count of the MSM drones.
My issue with you is your very defense of this coverage and the use of terms that are generalized and vague and which convey no information other than superficial and shallow parroting of the MSM's dumbing down of the issues in Iraq.
The Iraqi government is proving to be less than adept at governing or managing its security. Is this an issue? Yes it is. And for this reason I have come to believe that unless there is some progress in this front, there should be a different tack.
My tack would be to bomb the hell out of Iran's gasoline refinary - they've got exactly one - and then blockade the Iranian ports. This would effectively put an end to Iran as a player in the region as they would run completely out of gasoline in about one week.
Your solution would be to cut and run.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
What is a key factor for a su
June 14, 2007 - 12:52 ET by BDWhat is a key factor for a successful insurgency? Foreign Support to the insurgent.
Show me an insurgency that succeeded without this foreign support please.
What amazed me for most of th
June 14, 2007 - 13:08 ET by BDWhat amazed me for most of the 1980's was how the leftists media covered events in Latin America.
Wild praise for the Sandinista's in Nicaragua by the media who just knew that Daniel Ortega's communist Vision was the wave of the future for the Nicaraguans and that the US based "Contra Murderers" would all be wiped out in no time at all. Young "Sandalistas" wearing Birkinstocks flocked to Nicaragua to get in on the bong-fest and "Help out."
Exit the Sandinistas stage right and the introductionof democratic Capitalism. Even Danny O who is back on the scene has dropped the bulk of his radiacal ideas knowing they no longer have cache.
Same-same El Salvador. I recall that for the bulk of the 1980's we heard nothing from the media but that the FMLN was going to kick the US supported capitalists out of power any day and that the poor peasants of the FMLN deserved to win. WHile I was at Fort Benning studying next door to the School of the Americas the media liked nothing better than to send a camera team to watch four dippy protestors stage a sit-in at the entrance so they could relive their Vietnam youth by railing against the El Sal students who were getting training in items like Civil Affairs, and Human Rights prior to going home and taking on the FMLN.
Then one day, the FMLN disappeared from the scene and the war in El Sal was effectively over. For years we had been told that the FMLN on th white charger was going to rescue the peasants from the beastly US supported government and they just DISAPPEARED.
Great parallels in both of these cases.
One School? One Iraqi Batta
June 14, 2007 - 12:50 ET by BDOne School? One Iraqi Battalion?
Is that a propagandistic statement, or just self loathing ala J Frank Wilson?
While I was there I noted SEVERAL schools in the Mosul area that were erected. I know troops who trained SEVERAL Iraqi Battalions. THey might not be up to US speed yet, but neither are the Frogs.....
What we saw there was smoke
June 14, 2007 - 12:52 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhat we saw there was smoke and mirrors. Listen to the idiot that wasn't there - he knows better!
Yes, he has heard from his co
June 14, 2007 - 12:57 ET by BDYes, he has heard from his coffee shop buddies that all is lost, and that WE were the cause of it all....
And usually somewhere they have "A guy who knows a guy, who is related to a guys, who said..."
Coffee shop? I was thinking
June 15, 2007 - 07:28 ET by Sergeant ROCKCoffee shop? I was thinking more likely a bath house in San Francisco.
Why can't we export our media?
June 14, 2007 - 08:39 ET by w0tmWe have easily exported Coca-Cola, MTV and Britney Spears to the world. Why can't we export out leftist media? Doing so would bring any country to it's knees in no time! Can you imagine Katie Couric in a burka doing the nightly news in Tehran? We're really missing the ultimate WMD and one in which no one dies.
In every other war, people
June 14, 2007 - 09:20 ET by doubledown552In every other war, people die almost daily. Why is it that we feel the need to tell everyone on Earth that someone has died again? That is part of war and we need not rehash this day in and day out. It's unnecessary and causes more casualties due to a downward trend in moral.
Morals....? Who needs those?
It is if you have an agenda
June 14, 2007 - 09:28 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt is if you have an agenda.