Thread: How Liberal Bias Shapes the MSM - and Our Views

Headlines Offer an Alternate Liberal Reality
By Rusty Weiss
September 8, 2008

This is to say, not reality at all.

What is the first step in the main stream media’s handbook of liberal bias? Why, alter the headline to fit your agenda, of course.

In textbook MSM form, liberal news outlets have been altering the planned Tuesday announcement by President Bush that 8,000 troops in Iraq will be home by February.

Allow me to demonstrate…

Step one of the plan for bias is to wait for a perfectly positive piece of news. The White House released the text of Bush’s speech on Monday. Agence France-Presse (AFP) took the plunge in reporting with this headline:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...aUWN7N86kEB14w

Bush: 8,000 US troops to leave Iraq

Good news to most Americans, as any troops returning home after a victorious run in the War on Terror is a good thing. In fact, you’d think this would be ideal news for liberals who want an immediate withdrawal of all troops. You’d think they’d be happy at the announcement of any troops returning home.

But, you’d think wrong. After all, this is an announcement by the most reviled President in MSM history. Any news that might put the President in a positive light must be altered. Thus, we have step two in the MSM plan for bias – Alter the headline to cast a negative shadow on George Bush. This step coincides directly with the medical terminology known as Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

Step two of the plan was deftly executed by several media sources.

MSNBC continued their strong tradition of liberal bias by providing their viewers with this headline:

Bush to keep troop levels in Iraq for '08

Now, for those aspiring liberal journalists out there, see how easy that was? One simple word can do the trick, changing positive news to negative news in one fell swoop. The AFP headline, which included the word ‘leave’ was simply too positive. So, MSNBC throws in the word ‘keep’ to make it a negative action, by a negative President of course.

But our friends at MSNBC weren’t content to stop there. They later altered the news headline on the home page to read:

Troops won't return on Bush's watch

This allows for negativity, while simultaneously making sure that the viewer is hit with another realization that the positive won’t occur until one month AB (After Bush). Very effective, and so true to bias form.

The Times Online took it a step further, dropping proper condensed headline form by creating this bit of rambling incoherence:

President Bush to maintain US troops in Iraq until almost last day in office

Why not just go all out ladies and gentleman? Come strong with your bias, or don’t come at all. Perhaps this would have been an improvement?

President Bush to keep troops in Iraq until several years after the War on Terrorism campaign officially started

Because THAT would just be too ridiculous, right?

The AP’s headline refused to allow even a hint of good feelings about a troop drawdown, completely ignoring the facts as only the AP can do. Their headline read:

Bush keeping Iraq troop levels mostly steady

Talk about your glass half empty!

The BBC followed closely to the AP format:

Bush to announce troop reshuffle

The Washington Post continued the trend:

Bush to Keep Iraq Troop Levels Steady Until After He Leaves Office

Keep this in mind – these are only the headlines. The plan for bias calls for several executed steps by the media beyond the headlines.

If the MSM can alter reality in their headlines, imagine what they’ve been doing in the main content.

I suspect that the bias won’t stop here. One could only be partially surprised if they were to wake up tomorrow morning to this:

Bush to Personally Allow the Death of US Troops Until February

Seriously, would anyone be shocked?


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-w...iberal-reality

Nothing our "free press" does ever shocks me anymore!
I stopped being shocked when the raging lefties tried to
shut down conservative talk radio.Their motto should be:Free speech,
as long as it agrees with the socialist pov!

:cricket:

Bush keeping Iraq troop levels mostly steady
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 27 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush announced Tuesday that he will keep the U.S. force strength in Iraq largely intact until the next president takes over, drawing rebukes from Democrats who want the war ended and a bigger boost of troops in troubled Afghanistan.

The president said he will pull home about 8,000 combat and support troops by February — a drawdown not as strong or swift as long anticipated. No more Army combat brigades will withdraw in 2008, the final year of a Bush presidency that has come to be dominated by the war.

Bush's announcement, in a speech at the National Defense University, is perhaps his last major move on troop strategy in Iraq. He said more U.S. forces could be withdrawn in the first half of 2009 if conditions improve in Iraq.

But by then, he'll be out of office. His successor will be making the wartime decisions.

There are about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Here is the bottom line: While the enemy in Iraq is still dangerous, we have seized the offensive, Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight," Bush said.

Still, most of the U.S. forces are staying. Bush chose to emphasize that he was moving forward with "additional force reductions."

Democrats quickly shot back that Bush isn't doing enough to get troops out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, where violence is rising.

"The President's plan to reduce force levels in Iraq may seem to signal movement in the right direction, but it really defers troop reductions until the next administration," said the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo. "More significant troop reductions in Iraq are needed so that we can start to rebuild U.S. military readiness and provide the additional forces needed to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

Said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan."

Bush showed again that he determines when and how U.S. troops return from war, despite a fiercely opposition-controlled Congress and a soured American public.

In all, about 8,000 U.S. forces will be coming back, the president said.

One Marine battalion, numbering about 1,000 troops, will go home on schedule in November and not be replaced. An Army brigade of between 3,500 and 4,000 troops will leave in February. Accompanying that combat drawdown will be the withdrawal of about 3,400 support forces over next several months.

Bush's strategy appears to leave the political calculus of the presidential race unchanged.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has advocated pulling all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office. GOP nominee John McCain has said he would rely on the advice of U.S. military commanders to determine the timing and pace of troop reductions.

Both candidates have said more troops are needed in Afghanistan, where there has been a resurgence of the Taliban and a growth in violence.

The president offered a portrait of an Iraq on the rise by almost any measure: declining violence, improving governance, returning normalcy of life.

His military commanders say the security improvements in the country are becoming more durable, yet still fragile. That helps explain the cautious approach of keeping most U.S. forces on site, without resuming the monthly withdrawal of Army combat brigades of earlier this year.

In his upbeat account of the war, the president shared credit all around. "The progress in Iraq is a credit to the valor of American troops and civilians, the valor of Iraqi forces and the valor of our coalition partners," he said.

More than half of Bush's address was devoted to Afghanistan, the overlooked war where surging violence is demanding a stronger U.S. troop presence.

Bush outlined what he called a "quiet surge" of additional American forces there, bringing the U.S. presence to nearly 31,000, compared with about 146,000 in Iraq.

"For all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," the president said.

He announced that a Marine battalion that had been scheduled to go to Iraq in November would go to Afghanistan instead, and that that would be followed by one Army combat brigade.

On Iraq, senior defense officials say Bush is adopting a compromise proposal from his military team.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, had argued to keep troop levels fairly level through next June — an even longer timeframe than Bush is embracing. But others, including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they believed that withdrawing troops more quickly from Iraq represented a small risk compared to the gain that could be made by shifting more to Afghanistan.

It had been widely expected that Petraeus would recommend a faster pullback in Iraq perhaps calling for a reduction in the number of combat brigades from 15 to 14 this fall. But several recent events may have changed the calculus.

Among the more important changes was the unanticipated decision by Georgia to bring home its contingent of about 2,000 soldiers after Russia invaded the former Soviet republic in early August.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush sought a drawdown in forces that would not jeopardize security in Iraq.

"Either way, people would question: Should he send more? Should he send less?" Perino said. "He thinks that he hit it just right — that the Pentagon's recommendation was about the right size."

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the emerging plan also reflects the concern of U.S. commanders that rushing U.S. force reductions could lead to instability at a pivotal time of Iraqi political progress and preparedness of Iraqi forces.

"This plan does, however, mean continuing stress on both the active and reserve forces," Cordesman added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/...cQTuIyX3is0NUE

Bush to cut Iraq troops strength, boost forces for Afghanistan
by Laurent Lozano AFP
28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush announced Tuesday that he would pull just 8,000 US troops from Iraq in the coming months, while sending 4,500 soldiers to Afghanistan.

The decision means Bush's successor will take office in January with the US military presence in Iraq largely unchanged at about 140,000 troops -- a bigger deployment than two years ago despite the deep unpopularity of the war.

Bush, speaking to the National Defense University here, said progress in having Iraqis take over security responsibility -- which he characterized as "unimaginable" just two years ago -- had made a troop drawdown possible.

He said around 3,400 support unit troops would return home in coming months, a Marine battallion by November and an army brigade by February -- for a total of about 8,000 soldiers.

"If the progress in Iraq continues to hold, General (David) Petraeus and our military leaders believe additional reductions will be possible in the first half of 2009," Bush said, referring to the top US commander there.

The US president said a Marines battallion, would be deployed to Afghanistan in November, to be followed by an army combat unit in January.

"Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America and our partners in the free world. And for all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," he said. Bush said he called Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, and "pledged the full support of America's government as Pakistan takes the fight to the terrorists and extremists in the border regions."

"As we take these "As we take these new steps in Afghanistan, we must also help the government of Pakistan defeat Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters hiding in remote border regions of that country," he said.

"Defeating these terrorist and extremists is in Pakistan's interest because they pose a mortal threat to Pakistan's future as a free and democratic nation," he said.

His message came amid media reports of multiple strikes inside Pakistan recently by US or international troops based in Afghanistan, which accuses its neighbor of abetting or at least turning a blind eye to cross-border violence.

Bush defended his decision to leave the US military presence in Iraq largely unchanged for the remainder of his term as necessary because "the progress in Iraq is still fragile and reversible."

The unpopular president has steadfastly resisted calls for a withdrawal timetable in the five and a half years since the March 2003 US-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

His speech came eight weeks before the November 4 US election in which Bush's preferred successor, Senator John McCain, has pinned his hopes on his early and fervent support of the "surge."

McCain's rival, Democrat Barack Obama, has pledged to begin troop withdrawals immediately if elected, and foresees most combat troops being out of Iraq by late 2010.

Recent polls show two out of three Americans oppose the war and want to see a quick withdrawal, but many view the "surge" as a success story, and Bush has repeatedly said that US politics will not shape his decision.

Iraqi Prime Mininster Nuri al-Maliki has said that Washington and Baghdad have agreed that foreign forces will be gone by 2011 as part of talks on an agreement to govern the US troop presence in Iraq after its UN mandate lapses December 31. The White House denies that the deal is done.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080909...CS4MUVmQYGw_IE

Chris Matthews won the Media Research Center’s quote of the year with his Obamedia-topping Leg O’ Thrill and Tingle remark. But Matthews only took first honors because Washington Post reporter Eli Saslow waited until Christmas to file his tribute to Obama’s sun-kissed pectorals.

Have they no shame?

No, they do not.

The gushing reminded me of a blog post I did three years ago on how Bush-deranged journalist Jonathan Chait reacted to President Bush’s workout regimen. It’s the subject of my syndicated column today. More liberal double standards: It’s just how they roll.



***

Tale of two presidential workout fanatics

Ah, the perks of media affection. On Christmas Day, the Washington Post delivered a front-page paean to Barack Obama’s workout habits. The 1,233-word ode to O’s physical fitness read more like a Harlequin romance novel than an A-1 news article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...pid=sec-health

Sighed smitten reporter Eli Zaslow: “The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.” Drool cup to the newsroom, stat.

Zaslow imparted us with vital information about buff Bam’s regimen: “Obama has gone to the gym for about 90 minutes a day, for at least 48 days in a row.” The Washington Post enlightened us with more gushing commentary from Obama friends and associates who explain how, as the subtitle of Zaslow’s opus put it, “Gym Workouts Help Obama Carry the Weight of His Position.”

For adoring journalists, you see, Obama’s workout fanaticism demonstrates his discipline and balance in his life. Apparently, what’s good for Obama’s glistening pecs is good for the country. Zaslow quoted Obama Chicago crony Marty Nesbitt, who offered this diagnosis: “He doesn’t think of it as something he has to do — it’s his time for himself, a chance for him to reflect. It’s his break. He feels better and more revved up after he gets in his workout.”

And when Obama feels better, the skies will part, the sun will shine (in moderate, environmentally-correct, non-global warming-inducing amounts, of course) and peace will reign worldwide!

Too bad the doughy, McDonald’s-chomping, coffee-guzzling members of the White House press corps couldn’t see the merits of White House exercise over the past eight years. After giggling about his out-of-shape colleagues in the media, Zaslow mentioned in passing that President George W. Bush shares Obama’s commitment to health. What he failed to acknowledge is that the same reporters who so greatly admire Obama’s lithe figure derided Bush for his training schedule.

Former Washington Post writer Jonathan Chait famously attacked Bush three years ago in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times headlined, “The (over)exercise of power.” http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul...ion/oe-chait22 Recounting how President Bush ran 3 1/2 miles a day and preached more cross-training to a federal judge, Chait fumed: “Am I the only person who finds this disturbing?…What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.”

Chait argued that Bush’s passionate devotion to exercise was a dereliction of duty. “Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement?” he jeered. “It’s nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does.”

Can you imagine any member of the Obamedia mocking the incoming gym rat-in-chief this way?

Chait was not alone. Reuters journalist Caron Bohan weaved the same unhinged themes into a piece on Bush’s two-hour, 17-mile bike ride with cycling champ Lance Armstrong in Crawford, Texas in 2005. After noting his six-day-a-week workout schedule, Bohan steered the piece into an anti-war screed: http://www.redorbit.com/news/general...ong/index.html

Bush says exercise helps sharpen his thinking. But some of his critics view his exercise obsession as an indulgence that takes time away from other priorities. Among them is Cindy Sheehan, the Vacaville, California, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who until late last week was camped out down the road from Bush’s ranch seeking a meeting with him to discuss her opposition to the war. Sheehan, who left her vigil on Thursday to tend to her sick mother, has said she believes Bush should take fewer bike rides to have more time to focus on the “the nation’s work.”

Fit Republican president = Selfish, indulgent, creepy fascist.

Fit Democratic president = Disciplined, health-conscious Adonis role model.

The good news: In just a few short weeks, W. will be able to exercise in peace, free from the disapproving glares of journalists now rushing to mop the sweat — er, the glisten — from Barack Obama’s hallowed brow.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/27...kout-fanatics/

Bipartisan indignance over “Barack the Magic Negro” parody

Oh, give me a super-sized break.

Leftie ’60s leftover/songwriter Peter Yarrow at the Huffington Post fumes over the “Barack the Magic Negro” parody that has RNC candidate Chip Saltsman in hot water. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-..._b_153808.html

All of sudden — after eight years of “F**k Bush” bumper stickers and “Kill Bush” assassination chic and Bush-or-Chimp parodies — the left is concerned about insulting the office of the Presidency? ( see http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...ssination.html http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...-kids-art.html )


Now, they are concerned with protecting the dignity of the office and with forging “commong ground and mutual respect?”:

The sending of a Christmas greeting by Chip Saltsman to the members of the Republican National Committee that includes a recording of the so-called parody, “Barack the Magic Negro” is not only offensive, it is shocking and saddening in the extreme. It flies in the face of America’s deeply held hope for a new era in which common ground and mutual respect characterize the exchanges between our national leaders.

I and my co-writer of “Puff,” Lenny Lipton, have been eagerly awaiting an end to the mean-spiritedness, outright disrespect and bigotry that was commonplace prior to this last presidential election. What might have been wearily accepted as “the way it was” in the campaign, is now unacceptable. Obama is not a candidate. He is the President-Elect, and this song insults the office of the Presidency, the people who voted for him, as well as those who did not — and taking a children’s song and twisting it in such vulgar, mean-spirited way, is a slur to our entire country and our common agreement to move beyond racism.

If the song “insults the office of the Presidency,” what about the 2007 Los Angeles Times op-ed by David Ehrenstein that inspired the parody in the first place? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5335087.story

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.”

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,” reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest…

…Obama’s fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he’s written in his two (count ‘em) books, or even what he’s actually said in those stem-winders. It’s the way he’s said it that counts the most. It’s his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is “articulate.” His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn’t called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn’t project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

The hysterical rush to protect magical Obama from ridicule only proves Ehrenstein’s point. And the parody is as much, if not more, a satire of race-mongering demagogue Al Sharpton than it is of Obama

As much as I am nauseated by the left’s reaction, the overreaction of some on the right is even more gag-worthy. Current RNC chair Mike Duncan professes to be “shocked” and “appalled.” Others are assailing Saltsman’s lack of “sensitivity” and “tone-deafness” in sending out a joke CD by his good friend Paul Shanklin. Still others argue that even though the parody is not racist and is totally defensible, it’s just too much work to defend it.

If that’s the kind of GOP “leadership” we’re in for the next four years, it’s going to a long, long four years.


---

"Puff, the Magic Dragon" brings back memories, doesn't it? This song sticks in your head. Come on, dare you to start humming it. Barack the Magic Negro is sung to the same tune. Barack the Magic Negro originally aired on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, back in 2007, according to an article in The Age.

Barack the Magic Negro was written and performed in response to a March 2007 Opinion piece by David Ehrenstein in the Los Angeles Times. In it, Ehrenstein apparently says that voting for Barack Obama would help white voters alleviate guilt over past racial wrongdoings.

Barack the Magic Negro is in the news again because it has been made part of a 41 song compilation CD by conservative comedian Paul Shanklin and presented as a Christmas gift from Chip Saltsman. Chip Saltsman is a Republican National Committee member, and he gave the CD to fellow RNC members. The gift has caused a lot of controversy and is seen by some as racist, even though it was performed as satire.

Following is the first verse of the lyrics, so you can judge for yourself. (Note: Windows Audio format).

PAUL SHANKLIN (Al Sharpton impersonator):

Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.

The L.A. Times, they called him that

'Cause he's not authentic like me.

Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper

Said he makes guilty whites feel good

They'll vote for him, and not for me

'Cause he's not from the hood.

Listen to the rest here... http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...cs.html?cat=62

'Magic Negro' flap might help Saltsman
The controversy surrounding a comedy CD distributed by the RNC chair candidate has not torpedoed his bid.
By ANDY BARR | 12/30/08

The controversy surrounding a comedy CD distributed by Republican National Committee chairman candidate Chip Saltsman has not torpedoed his bid and might have inadvertently helped it.

Four days after news broke that the former Tennessee GOP chairman had sent a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” to the RNC members he is courting, some of those officials are rallying around the embattled Saltsman, with a few questioning whether the national media and his opponents are piling on.

“When I heard about the story, I had to figure out what was going on for myself,” said Mark Ellis, the chairman of the Maine Republican Party. “When I found out what this was about I had to ask, ‘Boy, what’s the big deal here?’ because there wasn’t any.”

Alabama Republican Committeeman Paul Reynolds said the fact the Saltsman sent him a CD with the song on it “didn’t bother me one bit.”

“Chip probably could have thought it through a bit more, but he was doing everyone a favor by giving us a gift,” he said. “This is just people looking for something to make an issue of.”

“I don’t think he intended it as any kind of racial slur. I think he intended it as a humor gift,” Oklahoma GOP Committeewoman Carolyn McClarty added. “I think it was innocently done by Chip.”

The song came with 40 others on an album from conservative satirist Paul Shanklin, a personal friend of Saltsman. The song is a parody of a 2007 Los Angeles Times column of the same title and is written to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon.”

“Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.” the opening of the song goes. “The L.A. Times, they called him that ‘cause he’s not authentic like me. Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper said he makes guilty whites feel good. They’ll vote for him, and not for me, ‘cause he’s not from the 'hood.”

The song, written shortly after the publication of the Times column, was first played on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. On Monday, Limbaugh prominently re-posted the song on the top left corner of his website above the headline, “Drive-by media misreporting of ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ song.”

The flap has generated unflattering attention at a time when the GOP is trying to rebuild its brand and reach out to new voters after an election in which GOP presidential nominee John McCain ran poorly among minority constituencies.

The day after the story was first reported by The Hill, RNC Chairman Mike Duncan issued a statement expressing disgust over the song. “The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party,” said Duncan, who is seeking reelection to his post. “I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction.”

Duncan was joined by Michigan GOP Chair Saul Anuzis, another RNC chairmanship aspirant who chided Saltsman for sending out the CD.

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said he was “disappointed” when he heard about the story and questioned Saltsman’s viability as a candidate going forward.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16919.html

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said he was “disappointed” when he heard about the story and questioned Saltsman’s viability as a candidate going forward.

So ... does the same apply to every Democratic candiadte who make jokes about Bush or Republicans?

Originally Posted by hblueeyes

Lets all get bent out of shape over a song written by a man who took indecent liberties with a 14 year old girl.

Roman Polanski wrote this song ??

Paul Shanklin Parodies : Shanklin has released a total of 11 albums of political parody songs and skits. Shanklin has performed over 1400 parody songs and skits incorporating over 80 voice impressions. Listen to Paul Shanklin's political humor - http://www.paulshanklin.com

Why They Hate Bush
Dan Collins
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14140

The Democrats keep fighting their favorite war: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123241360913796235.html

Here in the afterglow of the turnaround led by Gen. David Petraeus, it’s easy to forget what the smart set was saying two years ago — and how categorical they all were in their certainty. The president was a simpleton, it was agreed. Didn’t he know that Iraq was a civil war, and the only answer was to get out as fast as we could?

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — the man who will be sworn in as vice president today — didn’t limit himself to his own opinion. Days before the president announced the surge, Joe Biden suggested to the Washington Post he knew the president’s people had also concluded the war was lost. They were, he said, just trying to “keep it from totally collapsing” until they could “hand it off to the next guy.”

For his part, on the night Mr. Bush announced the surge, Barack Obama said he was “not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Three months after that, before the surge had even started, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pronounced the war in Iraq “lost.” These and similar comments, moreover, were amplified by a media echo chamber even more absolute in its sense of hopelessness about Iraq and its contempt for the president.

For many of these critics, the template for understanding Iraq was Vietnam — especially after things started to get tough. In terms of the wars themselves, of course, there is almost no parallel between Vietnam and Iraq: The enemies are different, the fighting on the ground is different, the involvement of other powers is different, and so on.

Still, the operating metaphor of Vietnam has never been military. For the most part, it is political. And in this realm, we saw history repeat itself: a failure of nerve among the same class that endorsed the original action.

Prescience. Let us join hands and mau-mau them to death. http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=7179

“There would be no war if it wasn’t for the damn troops.”

Related: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123241110108696081.html

Americans poured into the nation’s capital to celebrate the inauguration of their first black president. But with the U.S. in its worst economic crisis since the Depression and at war on two fronts, Barack Obama was expected to call on the country to embrace a new culture of responsibility when he takes office at noon.

The Problem Isn’t Media Bias, but Media Activism ....

Daily Caller’s Outrageous Documents Prove that The Problem Isn’t Media Bias, but Media Activism
2010 July 20 Michael van der Galien

The emails uncovered by Tucker Carlson’s the Daily Caller are truly outrageous. They show that the problem with the mainstream media isn’t that they’re biased, but that they’re progressive activists. They choose specific candidates to support, and lobby as hard as they can on their behalf. If they have to spin, lie, distort, create fake news stories and accuse opponents dishonestly of racism, so be it. Heck, they’re not even willing to do so, they’re happy to.

Leftists clearly believe that politics is war.
They call conservatives racists, not because they are, but because it harms their reputation beyond repair, after which it’s fairly easy to beat them in elections. Conservatives have to be destroyed – no matter how.

Of course these same progressives pretend to be “objective” journalists, simply doing their jobs.
Well, from now onwards, all we have to do to dismiss everything they say is to point at the Daily Caller’s story. All of these members of the ‘Journolist’, and their organizations with them, are nothing more than activists – and not just activists, but of the most despicable and ruthless kind at that. They have invented the journalism of personal destruction, all the while pretending to be professionals pur sang.

If I thought they had any sense – even to the slightest degree – of decency left in their cold-hearted bones, I’d tell them to be ashamed of themselves. As it is, however, it’s clear to me that they couldn’t care less about (professional) ethics, so I’ll just save myself the breath.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/07/...edia-activism/