Yesterday, with considerable ruffles and flourishes, 'Today' announced, as noted here, that NBC News would henceforth be referring to the situation in Iraq as a "civil war." Those curious as to why NBC would devote so much attention to what amounts to little more than an argument over semantics got their answer this morning. By shaping the language, NBC apparently seeks also to shape US policy.
In a segment narrated by NBC foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, we heard first from presidential historian Michael Beschloss, who declared:
"The Bush administration has a huge incentive to keep people from calling this a civil war. They know once this war is branded that way, Americans will essentially say that's not what we do, let's get out."
In introducing the succeeding clip, of retired Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, Mitchell claimed that "military experts also say if it is a civil war, US options are limited." Jacobs obligingly opined:
"Backing one side or the other is a recipe for disaster. Our objective ought to be to train essential government forces with police and military, and extract ourselves."
View video of Beschloss and Jacobs here.
The NBC game-plan becomes clear. As per Beschloss, make sure the conflict is "branded" a civil war. In so doing, ensure that US options are "limited" to the one suggested by Jacobs - "extract ourselves."
In sum, it appears that NBC News' trumpeted decision to label the situation in Iraq a "civil war" was no mere exercise in semantics. It reflects NBC's calculated attempt to influence public opinion and US policy on the most serious national security issue of the day. Such is the role that the MSM has arrogated to itself.
Finkelstein recently returned from Iraq. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NBC "News"
November 28, 2006 - 08:17 ET by allanfNBC "News" has moved from the news reporting business into the policy making arena.
The term "war" has misused lately. We have used terms like the "War on Poverty", "War on Drugs" or "War on Crime". This silly terminology has made the word"war" somewhat banal.
Once, "war" it meant engagements between armies. In Iraq, as long as the United States is present, nothing more than small unit fighting will be possible between factions.
Apparently NBC "News" believes that strapping explosives into cars and detonating the explosives among innnocents is "war" and not "terrorism"
I saw some of CNN's "new
November 28, 2006 - 08:32 ET by Free StinkerI saw some of CNN's "news" yesterday, and the woman on the screen was happy, I repeat, happy, when the on-the-scene "reporter" declared this was a "civil war".
Of course. Now all the MSM
November 28, 2006 - 09:47 ET by GalvanicOf course. Now all the MSM news readers can add "Civil War" to their resumes.
The term "Civil War" is also intended to soften up the public. Repeat it often enough in the news, and Dems can start using it themselves to rationalize cut-and-run, without negative public feedback.
The Demoncrats & the MSM
November 28, 2006 - 11:01 ET by Free StinkerThe Demoncrats & the MSM - teaming up to run a psyop against The American People
I agree with your assessment
November 28, 2006 - 08:56 ET by dscottI agree with your assessment of the tactics, the MSM is attempting to either force the Dems or give them cover to withdraw troops before the job is done in Iraq. I suspect it is the former as Noel rightly pegged the Dem election strategy to get in power and then pull the famous Clinton line, "That was then, this is now" ploy on their supporters on the anti-war left. This is another shot across the bow from the ultra libs to the Dem Party, Olberman and Matthews having fired the initial warning shots a couple of weeks ago with Howard Dean's waffling on the pull out issue. Howard Dean is not the insane lunatic he presented himself to be, he knows full well any pull out from Iraq before they can defend themselves will result in victory for terrorism and their eventual terrorism campaign here in the US. The best defense is a good offense, you don't win any struggle by pulling yourself into a ball just to let the enemy kick you around.
“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
dscott, I'll take option #2 (
November 29, 2006 - 03:09 ET by Indiana Joedscott, I'll take option #2 (give them cover) with maybe a smattering of #1 thrown in. I don't think the MSM likes having this fractured leftism to deal with, and wants them all to make nice, to simplify the "spin-meistering." Sure, the "moonbats" got Lamarr nominated for Senator, but look who actually WON! I don't think that was lost on the MSM.
Now, with the "redefinition" into a "civil war" dating back to 2006 (Dems NOT in power), that will become the "reason" for withdrawal. And since it happened during the Reps watch, particularly Bush's, it will be their fault if it all comes crashing down. But, if the Dems DO "stay the course," and we succeed in building a viable democracy of some kind in Iraq, they will be able to take the credit from their tweaking of troop levels or supply lines or some such trivial arcana. Even "diplomacy," God forbid.
I think the Dems would find it much more politcally satisfying to "rescue GWB from himself," than to have a failure to point at. That message would go a long way towards washing away the "cut-and-run" image, which they clearly loathe. Plus, they can ALWAYS revert to calling it "King George's War," should it EVER fall apart, knowing the MSM would dutifully distribute the talking points.
So, you take "column A," and I'll take "column B." One of us, at least, should be right... or close. .... ;^)
If you would like to nomina
November 28, 2006 - 09:00 ET by Red JeepIf you would like to nominate Andrea Mitchell, Brian Williams or David Gregory for the “Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Television Political Journalism” the entry deadline is Jan. 15, 2007. For just $100 you can nominate whom you wish!
Entries are submitted to the prestigious Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School for Communication. This is not a joke. See: www.reliableresource...
You can take part in deciding which news anchor, which of the 3 wise men, best exemplified Walter Cronkite in declaring the war on terrorism in Iraq, a civil war! Vote early and often. It’s only a $100 a vote.
Norman Lear CenterThat's w
November 28, 2006 - 10:27 ET by Jack BauerNorman Lear Center
That's where perfectly formed hood ornament and insane socialist ranter Neal Gabler "teaches" or something.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
If I had the money, I would f
November 28, 2006 - 11:24 ET by lnthompIf I had the money, I would flood them with Keith Olberman nominations. Of course, they already probably seriously believe KO is a great political journalist.
LNTHOMP previously posting as LEENT. U.S. Navy (ret.)
My success and happiness are not determined by who wins elections.
I was thinking the same thi
November 28, 2006 - 12:06 ET by Red JeepI was thinking the same thing.
I can't believe that this is not voted on by a board of repected journalism professors/ critics, but its not. Just pay your 100 bucks.
Speaking as a conservative, I
November 29, 2006 - 03:19 ET by Indiana JoeSpeaking as a conservative, I can't imagine myself spending $100 to vote for ANYTHING! It would so obviously be a "rich man's popularity contest." So Ted Turner or Bill Gates drops a mil to send in 10,000 votes; there's your winner. Even Oprah, for that matter. I mean, WTH, right?
What happens to the money, anyone know? Is THIS how they fund the "chair?" And how much did (does?) "Uncle Walter" get to sell his name to this joke of an "award?"
These questions should be asked, shouldn't they? Wouldn't they, if it was the "Attilla the Hun" chair selling the "Rush Limbaugh EIB" award?
This is getting reall dange
November 28, 2006 - 09:17 ET by happyuscitizenThis is getting reall dangerous and really irresponsible on the part of NBC "news". By taking this stance they are further inciting bloodshed and it is beyond the pale as far as I am concerned, so if they want to call it a Civil War in order to humiliate the United States and cause the successful military operation in Iraq to come to failure by their actions, maybe they need to be charged with sedition.
Since they don't have a dictionary over there at Today I will do them a favor and clue them in:
Sedition –noun
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.
—Synonyms 1. insurrection, mutiny. See treason.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Emphasis on treason is mine, not the definition source.
Don't be so dramatic. Maybe t
November 28, 2006 - 10:02 ET by Agnostic frontDon't be so dramatic. Maybe their calling it "civil war" because it is a civil war.
Right. And maybe the MSM s
November 28, 2006 - 10:13 ET by Free StinkerRight.
And maybe the MSM supports the troops? Or America?
Yeah, the media wants all the
November 28, 2006 - 10:18 ET by Agnostic frontYeah, the media wants all the troops to die horrible, violent and bloody deaths after being tortured by Bin Laden. And wants America to become a Muslim state so that all the members of the media can lose their jobs and go to jail.
No. They want the US to pul
November 28, 2006 - 10:30 ET by Free StinkerNo. They want the US to pullout of Iraq to embarass and hurt Bush(43). If troops die along the way, they certainly don't care, except as statistics to use against Bush(43).
The "lose their jobs and go to jail" part will come after any collapse/surrender of the US after years of their assistance to the Islamo-Fascists, and it will surprise those MSM idiots when it happens.
Ah! You finally paid attentio
November 28, 2006 - 10:37 ET by dscottAh! You finally paid attention to what OBL and Mahmoud of Iran having been saying for years now!! Good for you! <sarcasim filter on>
Careful there AF, sarcasim as a form of humor sometimes reveals the inner conflicts of the facts versus belief. Play with the facts long enough and you will become cynical to your cherished faith, what's worse you will be seen as a traitor to your cause. Case in point, do you acknowledge OBL and Mahmoud uttered statements that convey precisely what you mocked the conservatives for believing? If so, are you discounting their statements as internal politics for domestic consumption? I'm curious how deep your denial and compartmentalization has gone.
“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
Careful there, Freud. I just
November 28, 2006 - 10:51 ET by Agnostic frontCareful there, Freud. I just find it amusing that you think that a conspiracy exists in all of the MSM that their desire to see Bush fail includes a calousness toward the deaths of fellow Americans. American soldiers, who I might remind you, are relatives and neighbors of the very reporters whom you denigrate. The MSM is neither as calculating nor devious as you think. They are just not that sophisticated. They appear to desire only one thing: ratings. They don't really care who is in power, as long as they make a buck.
a tamper-proof media?
November 28, 2006 - 10:56 ET by tumblerSo, for you the media is incorruptible? Doesn't care who's in power?
Are you from earth?
I am not saying that the all
November 28, 2006 - 11:03 ET by Agnostic frontI am not saying that the all members of the media, individually, are not corruptable. Collectively, you all impart far too much collusion.
too much collusion
November 28, 2006 - 11:21 ET by tumblerYou have no need for collusion in the MSM; you have total and ultra Liberalism / on deck in every news program.
Every talking head including some on Fox --slants unquestioningly to leeward, we have a biased media. Only Brit Hume and some of our columnists can be counted as conservative. Even he attempts to balance his news presentation by giving a chair to some wacko leftist during the discussion.
Nice side step from your obje
November 28, 2006 - 11:32 ET by dscottNice side step from your objectifying, using the MSM to mirror what you believe, thus they receive the credit/blame. What defines a conspiracy AF? How many people does it take to make a cabal? It only takes a minimum of two people to form a conspiracy, so it doesn't require 100% participation of the group in question. Are you denying that a number of high profile MSM members are acting in concert? Secondly, a conspiracy requires an intent to alter the results of what normally would turn out to be. Do you deny that certain public figures in the MSM have expressed a consistent message about the Iraq situation using their position as a talking head (TV), reporter or editorialist? Do you deny they have attempted to sway not only public opinion but also pressure political leaders to a certain position? Thirdly, a conspiracy requires some kind of personal or group gain (political, monetary, notariety, etc.), do you deny that people like Olberman have not only ratings (which does translate to money) but public stature to gain from their actions?
“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
MSM
November 28, 2006 - 12:19 ET by iveseenitall"The MSM is neither as calculating nor devious as you think". Comments like this prove the left is winning. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Thank you for removing all ou
November 28, 2006 - 12:47 ET by Roger the ShrubberThank you for removing all our doubts about your intelligence.
Your welcome. 148 I.Q. ;
November 28, 2006 - 14:01 ET by Agnostic frontYour welcome. 148 I.Q. ; )
159. You lose.
November 28, 2006 - 14:10 ET by Uncle John159. You lose.
Liar.
November 28, 2006 - 14:15 ET by Agnostic frontLiar.
This sentence is a lie. LN
November 28, 2006 - 14:17 ET by lnthompThis sentence is a lie.
LNTHOMP previously posting as LEENT. U.S. Navy (ret.)
My success and happiness are not determined by who wins elections.
ROFLMAO. That's clever, AF
November 28, 2006 - 14:18 ET by Uncle JohnROFLMAO. That's clever, AF.
Anyone that goes by the vague
November 28, 2006 - 14:20 ET by Agnostic frontAnyone that goes by the vaguely pedophile monikor of "Uncle John" cannot have an I.Q. above 87.
Likewise, naming oneself afte
November 28, 2006 - 16:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberLikewise, naming oneself after a 2nd-rate NYC hardcore punk band from the 1980's who only had one album worth noting and was fronted by a loser convict drug addict is a stroke of genius.
First, Agnostic Front is hard
November 28, 2006 - 17:01 ET by Agnostic frontFirst, Agnostic Front is hardly second rate, in that they basically created the NYC Hardcore scene. Second, a number of good bands are fronted by convict drug addicts, so what's your point? See, e.g., the Sex Pistols, the Libertines, the Jimi Hendicks Experience, Greatful Dead, not to mention the Beatles and the Who.
AF have always been bandwagon
November 28, 2006 - 17:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberAF have always been bandwagon jumpers. They jumped on the whole "crossover" fad in the mid 1980's and today sound like any other NYC nu-metal/metalcore crap band that would be signed to Roadrunner.
Like I said, "Victim in Pain" was a great album. Everything they've done since blows.
As for your praise of druggies in bands, the one thing missing with your examples is that the majority of them are dead, while Miret is alive and well. And you forgot Layne Staley. I cannot argue about taking drugs is a big part of those bands' success.
you're a bundle of contradictions
November 28, 2006 - 17:22 ET by tumblerThe whole raunchy list is second-rate. Wouldn't mean shit to George Gershwin (for one American musician) and certainly not to somebody like me. I'd say even Gene Autry made better records than your bands.
My opinion, naturally. Makes every word true.
You made the claim of an IQ
November 28, 2006 - 18:58 ET by Uncle JohnYou made the claim of an IQ of 148. I was willing to accept that at face value, since I don't really give a rat's ass what your IQ is, and there's no way to verify your claim in this medium. Yet you question me when I truthfully state my IQ. I'm stunned, I tell you, stunned. Oh well, you being you is your own punishment. Good luck with that. And it's "moniker", "genius".
Sayonara, troll.
Just proves that IQ does not
November 28, 2006 - 19:02 ET by ChemicalOperatorJust proves that IQ does not make you smart, just makes you intelligent. Some of the smartest people in the world can also be the most clueless.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
"OHHH, Uncle John gets s
November 29, 2006 - 08:46 ET by Indiana Joe"OHHH, Uncle John gets some GOOD wood on that one! It's up, it's going.... GOING.... IT'S GOOOONNNE!!! ALL the way out of the BALLPARK!!!!"
"A troll round-tripper!!!" .... ;^D
ROTFLMAO!!!
IQ
November 28, 2006 - 14:22 ET by misterbillMy ex-wife had a very high IQ. She used to spend the first hour of every morning figuring out which was her ass and which was her elbow.
Also, I own a thermometer. It has 120 degrees , yet it can only do one thing. I have met people whose IQs were far less than mine, that I felt were a hell of a lot smarter than me. You can't beat natural instinct!
You don't get it about these
November 28, 2006 - 11:54 ET by NL207You don't get it about these Islamofascists. Listen to their holy men. The present members of the MSM would mostly be executed under an Islamic Theocracy. Homosexuals, prostitutes, drug dealers and the like would be executed as well. Don't believe this? Look here. This woman was one of a group of five persons hanged from auto wrecker cranes in public by the Iran Theocracy. The charge: Narcotics trafficing.
in spite of this, the MSM can't see the need to defeat Islamofascism.
At the risk of wishing calami
November 28, 2006 - 13:45 ET by dscottAt the risk of wishing calamity on ourselves, given the idiocy of the MSM and anti-war libs, at times it would almost make sense to let the Islamofascists have their way and let them start the slaughter now to rid us of their inane stupidity and self gratification. I suppose that's why history repeats itself. We must have our appeasing Chamberlins for everyone to recognize the sanity of a Churchill. Will Iraq be the next Czechoslovakia to be carved up into Kurdistan, Iran and Syria? Common sense and history cause me to resist the appeasers, wearisome dismay causes me to consider if dragging along these idiots against their will is worth the effort.
“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
dscott calamity
November 28, 2006 - 13:55 ET by misterbilldscott calamity
Keep your common sense and knowledge of history. America needs you. We have the greatest gift of any country in the world. The stupidity from the left is very tiresome. The world is full of people who are enjoying their freedoms at the cost of those. who, like you, and our young folks in Iraq, can recognize danger and help to combat it!
We have the death penalty.
November 28, 2006 - 19:35 ET by BlameTheMediaWe have the death penalty. We just hide it so people won't abolish it.
The death penalty is hidden?
November 28, 2006 - 20:22 ET by UnsaneThe death penalty is hidden? Not in TX, where we are quite proud of it. TX, incidentally, has used it more than any state in the union since Gregg v. Georgia (1976).
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Sorry AF, I have to agree wit
November 28, 2006 - 10:24 ET by ValendilSorry AF, I have to agree with Free and Happy.
(Kinda cool the way your shortened Screen names come together, isn't it?!)
Yeah, Free & Happy has
November 28, 2006 - 10:33 ET by happyuscitizenYeah, Free & Happy has a nice ring to it instead of a kafir under the boot heal of a Caliphate.
Free & HappyI like it!
November 28, 2006 - 10:36 ET by Free StinkerFree & Happy
I like it! :-) Beats Agnostic & Hateful ;-)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The MSM supports the troops. The enemy's troops!
The IRA and ETA
November 28, 2006 - 10:54 ET by UnsaneSo agnostic, Britain and Spain have been in a civil war since 1968 then?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
civil war n. A war between fa
November 29, 2006 - 04:37 ET by Indiana Joecivil war n.
civil war. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil war (accessed: November 29, 2006).
I think we can agree that the first definition is the one that concerns us here. And it begs the question, are the "terrorists" or "insurgents" or whatever, a legitimate "faction" of Iraq? Considering how many "foreign-national fighters" have been captured, wounded or even killed fighting in Iraq, I'm not sure it fits the definition of a "civil war." A few locals joining what is basically an invasive force does not represent a "faction" native to that land.
Of course, a few "foreign-nationals" joining what is mainly a rebellion by the people against their own government does not negate the definition of a "civil war," either. In a case like Iraq, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. But, from what I've seen and heard and read, the majority of the Iraqi people want us there to stop the terrorism, regardless of WHO is committing it. And to help them re-build their war-ravaged (not to mention Saddam-ravaged) country.
And Iraq is an ally of ours now, or at least under our protection. They have held a series of elections and chosen a governing system, with people elected to fill that system, and implement it. Most of the attacks have NOT been aimed at that government, but at the people. Now, "the Green Zone" is meant to be the tightest security in Baghdad, I'll grant that, and I assume the government's main offices are there. But just ask the Israelis how easy it is to keep suicide bombers out of "target areas," and they'll provide plenty of evidence to the difficulty involved. If someone WANTS to get through, eventually they will. But, apparently, toppling a government that the populace feels a need to topple (if so) is NOT a high priority of the violence in Iraq. Another strike against the "civil war" argument, IMHO.
Finally, the term "civil war" started being bandied about months ago in the MSM. It was the drumbeat picked up when the "when will there be elections?" cadence died off after the elections were held. But, no military people would quite go that far, IIRC, possibly for the reasons I mention above, or others. So now, NBC takes it upon themselves to unilaterally redefine the debate, forcing the words "civil war" down our throats. Why would that be?
You say, "Maybe their calling it "civil war" because it is a civil war."
I think, based largely on the above, that's "maybe" not the reason. The circumstances don't warrant that label. Now Bosnia, THERE was a civil war, with different factions from the same country fighting for control. Same thing in Somalia. But, that's NOT what's happening in Iraq today. Therefore, NBC must have another reason for suddenly deciding to stop pussy-footing around "civil war," and start beating that drum LOUDLY!
Hmm, what could THAT "reason" be? Could it be to justify the "pull-out," or "redeployment" that the Democrats have been clamoring for during the run-up to the recent elections? To remind them not to "waffle" on their campaign pledges to do just that? To give the Dems "cover" if it DOES all come crashing down following a "too-early" withdrawal?
"Maybe..."
I agree that there actions ar
November 28, 2006 - 10:47 ET by Dave RI agree that there actions are, at the very least, seditious, but now they have gone beyond even that. It's bad enough they are putting our troops in Iraq in danger, but do they not see the danger they are putting all of us in as well?
How short-sighted and stupid can they be?
Government: the world's largest and best charity
November 28, 2006 - 10:58 ET by UnsaneThey DO NOT CARE. To them, as well as the Leftist posters here, the government is not here to protect us from terrorism or other threats. The government exists to be United Way writ large; the Massive, Ultimate Nanny. The necessary actions there are interfering with the government's primary mission of coddling and pampering the citizenry of the United States (that is, the primary mission in their view).
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
So, what we have is two relig
November 28, 2006 - 10:10 ET by BruzillaSo, what we have is two religious groups blowing stuff and each other up in order to force their government to do something. Wouldn't that mean that Ireland is in a civil war? What about Arab Janjaweed militias attacking Sudanese villagers in Darfur? Wouldn't that be a civil war and aren't we being told that the only way to stop that civil war is for the US to get involved? How about pro-life christians killing pro-choice secularists? Does that mean we're in a civil war and never knew it? I guess I need to check with Matt and get his take on who all is in a civil war and who isn't.
MSM
November 28, 2006 - 10:59 ET by iveseenitallRussert, Mitchell, Olbermann, Matthews, Williams, Gibson,Lauer, etc. No longer reporters of the news or even news analysts. They are the MSM propaganda machine, doing all in its power to bring down the American system as created by patriots at the end of the eighteenth century. Sickening socialist/liberal bastards, these dogs howl day and night for America's demise while they reap the rewards of freedom.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Seen, you're right on the mon
November 29, 2006 - 08:35 ET by Indiana JoeSeen, you're right on the money here. Being a "reporter" is looked down upon by the types you list. There was a time not too long ago, when "anchor" was the Holy Grail of TV journalism. After that was denigrated as "talking head," these guys had to create a new "holy of holies" to define their upward mobility. Not just an "analyst," but an "anchor analyst." Free to spew whatever they wanted, facts and logic bedamned.
It's been often said that things like politics and social movements or mores run in cycles, like a pendulum. It swings one way so far, then swings back to off-set the extremes of either position. And over time that seems a valid analogy.
One example is the similarities between the social mores of the '60s and the "Roaring '20s." In both cultures, raucous music (jazz, rock) were a mainstay, drugs were acceptable (marijuana and cocaine were legal in the '20s, opiates, if not legal, were readily attainable, as was "bootleg" liquor) and as for "free sex;" well, every generation thinks they've discovered something new, but "flappers" were what became known as "party girls" in the '60s. Just one example, as I said.
When the Republicans won control of Congress in '94, ending a 40-year shut-out, conservatism seemed poised for the pendulum to swing back. Now, there are many reasons that swing could have been shortened. BUT there is no doubt in my mind that it was clipped off early by the antics of your above-mentioned "Gang of 7, et. al." They basically, through selective reporting, ignoring what didn't fit their agenda, and outright lies (oops, sorry, I meant "spin!"), seized the pendulum in mid-swing and redirected it.
Will their efforts succeed in the long term? I don't know, I certainly hope not. Because, as a conservative, I naturally want to see our ideas tested and proven right (or even wrong; just TRIED, dammit!). It's just human nature. But whether they have accomplished a water-shed moment in history, or just a blip on the graph, remains to be seen. Hopefully, others will recall the blatant bias, and quick back-tracking as "spiked" stories were released after the election, proving the point of their extreme measures to carry water for the Democrats.
All we can do is keep fighting to spread the word, via NB and to our friends and families, and hope that, come '08, there are enough of us "media cynics" out there to counter their next attempt. Because the worst part of this whole mess is that it WORKED! That will embolden them to try it again. Now that we know what levels they will stoop to, we must act to counter them.
And we MUST be ready. The next one is for ALL the marbles. No joke.
Our own media will destroy th
November 28, 2006 - 12:21 ET by Clear thinkerOur own media will destroy this country. The liberal MSM uses the bad guys talking points on a daily basis, who's side are they on? Evidently, not ours!
Do Liberals understand what's at stake? Let's find out, go here... http://newsbusters.org/node/9253
MSM to the Rescue
November 28, 2006 - 13:05 ET by d1carterI wonder how the MSM will play it when the car bombings and violence are on the streets of US cities. Who will be to blame, certainly not the unbiased media. The self congratulatory environment the media is currently in, will turn to blame the conservatives. "That was then, this is now".
"Civil War" my A$$!
November 28, 2006 - 16:52 ET by MightyMouth"Civil War" my A$$!! Anyone who has had teenagers knows what a real civil war is! NBC, howabout reporting the news instead of making it up! schmucks!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I said that yesterday:Conserv
November 28, 2006 - 23:07 ET by Conservative in the ArtsI said that yesterday:
Conservative in the Arts Says:November 27, 2006 - 22:15
.......The real evil behind this is that the MSM is giving the new Dem congress all they need to "pull out" as soon as they get to power. Just like in volleyball....the MSM is setting the ball and the dems are gonna spike it hard for a pull out.