Partiality in war coverage is showing
Do I see some media bias?
Instead of headlining, “GI deaths in Iraq show deep decline,” the Rocky Mountain News chose to go back almost a full year and the headline instead reads, “It’s a bad year for GIs in Iraq” (Nov. 5).
Too bad the really great news doesn’t get the headlines. (Oh yes, in a very small-print clause the Rocky casually mentions “ ... a recent drop in American deaths.”)
Thanks a lot.
John Hetlinger, Broomfield
John,
Please educate yourself. You're embarassing us real Conservatives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=2007+deadliest
Jeesh -- the tards on here.
Posted by Fact Checker on November 12, 2007 12:03 PMJohn Glenn said this that should make you think a
little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us .
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.
d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us .
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban,crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
But Wait It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation..
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!
The BDSers see no bias. With al thier belly acheing about thier rights supposedly being lost they celebrate Hugo Chavez, yet he isa doing exactly what they claim is being done here.
The left has never gotten over the facft that Gore lost fair and square dispite thier attempts to rig the Florida election by changing the rules, disalowing the military vote and crying like babies.
Posted by on November 12, 2007 03:31 PMfact checker - the major story within the very article you cite describes how the violence in Irag is down steeply - not only for our troops but for the general population.
Try as may to call yourself a conservative you blow your cover by not mentioning that the surge is to blame (credit if you are conservative) for the dramatic drop in attacks and bombings.
Conservative my ass you tard
Things are going great in Iraq if you're a big proponent of Enron-style accounting...
Bill Clinton while not inhaling:
There are a myriad of problems with your Detroit analogy.
I'll give you a smiley face on your forehead if you can tell me what they are. Here's a tip: Learn rudimentary math- perhaps from a second or third grader.
Posted by Charles B on November 12, 2007 05:29 PMcharles b,Are you going for the village idiot of the year award?
Posted by Keith on November 12, 2007 06:36 PM