Of course, you can retrieve that comment.

The war was doomed from the start. You said so.

You can take it back if you want.

Good gawd. Their first priority, like most of us, is to get the money.

Conservative MediaHate. It’s not enough to just hate the media.

Ok.

I was referring to rathergate.

Dugger

Neat switcheroo there Dugger. This isn’t the questions at hand. Of course the longer a war goes on the more death and destruction occurs. But that doesn’t mean that the longer a war goes on the more likely it is that the public will see its sheer duration as a negative.

I doubt that three years into WWII the American public saw the sheer duration of the war as a negative because they could point to clear and steady progress being made. And so could their leaders. In addition, at the outset of the war they were prepared for just such a long hard struggle requiring much self-sacrifice.

Three years is only a negative, in and of itself, if as Curmudgeon points out, the American people were lead to expect a swift victory. There’s no question that’s how the invasion of Iraq was sold. Now three years in it’s difficult to point to progress as there’s still violence everyday. So now people are asking themselves what it’s all about because what they were told would happen has not ocurred. Reality has undermined the rhetoric.

But even so, I have to ask again, how dumb do you think the American people are? Obviously you think they have to be pretty dumb since they have to “reminded” by the press about how long this war has been going on. As if every day there’s a report of more violence people don’t stop and think, “Still?”

At the same time, I think it’s important to point out that the dipshits at Newsbusters only cite one example of the four that they said occurred. At least when Media Matters says something was said on a news program, they back it up. Here’s the only example cited:

Lara Logan: “Three years after this war began Iraqis are still facing an uncertain and violent future.”

Someone want to tell me what’s inaccurate or “overemphasized” in this sentence?

“I don t understand your (or News Busters) objections. If the Iraq war is going swimmingly, if Freedom is on the March!(TM), if everyday Iraqis are just having a dandy old time in their newly painted schools, why wouldn t you want to be reminded of it? ”

Is this another hit and run job BGA? When the going gets tough and thoughtful discussion is called for, you call names and leave? If so, why bother.

But I will ’splain it to you and the others anyway. Conducting war is painful and hard and costly, both in terms of people and material resources. No matter how good (or bad or just) the war is, the longer it goes on, the worse it is. By definiton. Verstanden sie? So if one were against war and wanted to propagandize against it, one would choose to overly emphasize its inherent negatives, not the positives that might come from it. Much like trying to dissuade a kid from getting a shot by harping on the length of the needle and pain of the shot.

Dugger, An Archipelago of Sanity in the Ocean of Inanity

Hey kids, really want that shot. That needle is 5″ long?

If someone were doing a commentary, and began it with, “As we approach the third year of our involvement in Iraq…”, that would make sense.

But what does it mean when four different people make that same point on one show? I would say that someone is trying to hammer someone else over the head with an idea. Did the newscasters follow their chrono - based intoductions with a fair and balanced report on the negatives and positives (contrary to “popular”, i.e., Oliverian, opinion, there are positives) of our involvement? Knowing CBS, I doubt it.

If someone were doing a regular “NightLine” type broadcast, and introduced it everyday as Iraq: Day 1098, then keeping count would make sense.

Otherwise, it’s anti - war bias, pure and simple.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/01/27/cnn-demonstrates-its-liberal-bias/#comments

It’s really astonishing isn’t it.

 I don t recall any forged documents

Uhhh, oookayyyy.

Dugger

And I sure remember 60 Minutes hit piece on the Clintons with those forged documents from direputable surces.

Dugger,

I was refering to the 60 Minutes interview with Bill and Hillary during his first campaign (I think). I thought you were claiming it was a puff piece because no forged documents were used to smear them as with the President. I was pointing out even though that was the case, they still caught plenty of flak about Hillary’s comments regarding her not being a traditional housewife.

Whereas in this case, the fact that we have been in Iraq for 3 years is extremely pertinent to the CURRENT debate over whether we’ve been there too long and how long we might have to be there still.

The conservatives here show once again that they hold everyone else to a much higher standard than they do themselves. No. Integrity. Whatsoever.

Because it shows how ignorant, unreasonable and ill-prepared ours leaders were, going into this conflict. Between Rumsfeld guessing the war wouldn’t last - he “doubted” - six months, and Cheney pontificating about the Iraqis “greeting us as liberators”, and whatever moron uttered the phrase “flowers and candy”, between that, and all the other pie-in-the-sky bullshit they crammed down the public’s throat, you’ve got Dugger and Frank wishing we just wouldn’t talk about it at all. They’d most certainly have us all just pretend it isn’t happening. Nobody is dying, schools are opening everywhere!!

Dugger, Frank, JWG, et al. would most certainly NOT have the American public reminded of how inept this administration is. They’d rather have them remain as uninformed as the leaders they, themselves, support.

Could these Cons have illustrated their contempt for truth, for fact, and for the notion of an informed American public any more clearly than they have in this thread alone?

“I don t recall any forged documents’

Uhhh, oookayyyy.

Dugger