December 30, 2006
Breaking News!
The media has declared that the war in Iraq is now a "civil war." Repeating...the media has declared the war in Iraq a "civil war."
A "civil war" is defined
But who cares!? Does it really matter to the Americans and Iraqis who were killed and wounded last week, last month and last year - and who will be killed and wounded next week, next month and next year - if they were killed or wounded in a "civil war" or not?
Why is the MSM obsessed with naming this war, as opposed to say, reporting the war? And for the past three years, why have reporters and anchors repeatedly asked politicians, "if Iraq will turn into a civil war?" - as if it made a difference - when it already was (keep in mind, these reporters and anchors attended journalism school for the sole purpose of asking such probing questions)?
And making it even more asinine is that Republicans spun their answer as if admitting the obvious would make an independent vote Democrat. How pathetic.
Instead of wasting everyone's time with "duh" questions (and ensuing "duh" answers), why didn't the media inform their viewers and readers about this civil war that has turned into a colossal disaster, and explain that it could even get worse by spilling into Saudi Arabia? And why have they still not done so?
But we shouldn't be surprised. Just look at how the MSM "reported" the incessant GOP accusation that pulling out of Iraq meant "cutting and running," as if there's something wrong with "cutting and running" (it is "pro-life" after all). Heck I'm still waiting for a reporter from the so called "liberal" media to confront a Republican with the fact that President Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon just four months after the Marine barracks were bombed.
Be that as it may. The "cut and run" (cough, cough) "debate" got us nowhere; the exact same place the "civil war" nonsense did. But it did accomplish what it was designed to do: rile up the mindless and gullible Republican base which, as I've shown, is all that matters.
I'd also like a reporter to confront George Bush when he says he "wants to win" in Iraq.Gee, no kidding. What does the MSM expect him to say? And just like everything else, they let it go, unchallenged. Everyone wants to "win" in Iraq, but that's a lot different then being able to win. It's like trying to justify the millions of dollars you've lost trying to win the lottery by saying you "want to 'win' the lottery." And when you continue to lose, you say you're "making progress" and will "hit the jackpot in six months" or "next year."
Sound familiar?
But what is "winning" in Iraq anyway? When the roads are cleared of all IED's forever? When the bombings and shootings stop...forever? When tortured bodies stop turning up...forever? When our troops (and haughty Republicans) can walk down the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Al-Anbar and Ramadi without fear and body armor? When a legitimate Iraqi government takes control, that respects the rule of law, due process and minority rights?
Please. I have a better chance at winning the lottery.
With their violent, ruthless, authoritarian history, Iraqi's (and most of the Arab world for that matter) wouldn't know a city council meeting if it fell on them. In fact, since they've grown up in a barbaric, vindictive culture, their idea of "the rule of law" and "due process" is grabbing someone off the street in broad daylight and cutting their throat on the spot (the New York Times had a picture on their web site of a family, including the children, watching Saddam Hussein's execution on TV. So it's a bloodthirsty culture that won't be changing any time soon.).
In light of all their incompetence and ineptitude, what does it say about the Iraqi government when the only thing they can do is execute a flawless hanging (or couldn't they even do that right?)?
And to think that this is the society George Bush was willing to spill American blood for.
And yet, the so called "liberal" mediaThe media has declared that the war in Iraq is now a "civil war." Repeating...the media has declared the war in Iraq a "civil war."
A "civil war" is defined as "a war between political factions or regions within the same country." That's been going on for the past three years! What took them so long?
But who cares!? Does it really matter to the Americans and Iraqis who were killed and wounded last week, last month and last year - and who will be killed and wounded next week, next month and next year - if they were killed or wounded in a "civil war" or not?
Why is the MSM obsessed with naming this war, as opposed to say, reporting the war? And for the past three years, why have reporters and anchors repeatedly asked politicians, "if Iraq will turn into a civil war?" - as if it made a difference - when it already was (keep in mind, these reporters and anchors attended journalism school for the sole purpose of asking such probing questions)?
And making it even more asinine is that Republicans spun their answer as if admitting the obvious would make an independent vote Democrat. How pathetic.
Instead of wasting everyone's time with "duh" questions (and ensuing "duh" answers), why didn't the media inform their viewers and readers about this civil war that has turned into a colossal disaster, and explain that it could even get worse by spilling into Saudi Arabia? And why have they still not done so?
But we shouldn't be surprised. Just look at how the MSM "reported" the incessant GOP accusation that pulling out of Iraq meant "cutting and running," as if there's something wrong with "cutting and running" (it is "pro-life" after all). Heck I'm still waiting for a reporter from the so called "liberal" media to confront a Republican with the fact that President Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon just four months after the Marine barracks were bombed.
Be that as it may. The "cut and run" (cough, cough) "debate" got us nowhere; the exact same place the "civil war" nonsense did. But it did accomplish what it was designed to do: rile up the mindless and gullible Republican base which, as I've shown, is all that matters.
I'd also like a reporter to confront George Bush when he says he "wants to win" in Iraq.Gee, no kidding. What does the MSM expect him to say? And just like everything else, they let it go, unchallenged. Everyone wants to "win" in Iraq, but that's a lot different then being able to win. It's like trying to justify the millions of dollars you've lost trying to win the lottery by saying you "want to 'win' the lottery." And when you continue to lose, you say you're "making progress" and will "hit the jackpot in six months" or "next year."
Sound familiar?
But what is "winning" in Iraq anyway? When the roads are cleared of all IED's forever? When the bombings and shootings stop...forever? When tortured bodies stop turning up...forever? When our troops (and haughty Republicans) can walk down the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Al-Anbar and Ramadi without fear and body armor? When a legitimate Iraqi government takes control, that respects the rule of law, due process and minority rights?
Please. I have a better chance at winning the lottery.
With their violent, ruthless, authoritarian history, Iraqi's (and most of the Arab world for that matter) wouldn't know a city council meeting if it fell on them. In fact, since they've grown up in a barbaric, vindictive culture, their idea of "the rule of law" and "due process" is grabbing someone off the street in broad daylight and cutting their throat on the spot (the New York Times had a picture on their web site of a family, including the children, watching Saddam Hussein's execution on TV. So it's a bloodthirsty culture that won't be changing any time soon.).
In light of all their incompetence and ineptitude, what does it say about the Iraqi government when the only thing they can do is execute a flawless hanging (or couldn't they even do that right?)?
And to think that this is the society George Bush was willing to spill American blood for.
And yet, the so called "liberal" media not only allows him to get away with his optimistic talking points, but reports them as if they were legitimate answers.
And it'll continue in the coming weeks when he comes out with his "new strategy on Iraq" because since we're in a pickle and we can't leave, can't stay, and can't win - and no "new strategy" to be had - the "liberal" media will report it as if it really was one (it sounds like Bush is considering sending more troops to Iraq. What part of "learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeat it" does he not understand?).
There's another White House/Republican talking point that the "liberal" media allows them to get away with: that "we must win and will win" as if it's against the rules or somehow beneath the United States to lose a war - including senseless wars that shouldn't have been fought in the first place - because we're Americans and it would be treason to even mention the "D" word (defeat). That's because in the pompous Republican world, we're immune from being wrong and therefore, always right. Only "evil" regimes such as Hitler's Germany, Hirohito's Japan and Hussein's Iraq are supposed to lose wars.
And we wonder why the world thinks we're arrogant and get what we deserve.
When it comes to the Bush presidency there's good news and bad news. The good news is that an exponential amount of arrogance, incompetence (more here), immaturity, hypocrisy and mental illness cannot destroy the country or the world (at least I don't think so).
The bad news is that it's brought us closer to both then anyone could have imagined.
And to think conservatives roll their eyes at liberals.
+/- show/hide this post
