This is either an "outright" lie or you have been sadly misinformed. You should start by checking on Hanoi. Read this. What do you think we were bombing? Thin air?

No, Innocent civilians. Just ask Woman69.

The MSM has long ago lost any objectivity they may have ever had (which is doubtful). They are nothing more than a tool of those who seek to control the people through misinformation and thought control.

The nation's economy is strong and yet they keep harping on how bad it is. We won the war in Iraq when we defeated the Iraqi army and removed it's leader. What is happening now is helping the Iraqis establish a new stable government, and yet they keep harping on the fact that we are somehow losing a war that we have already won. WTF?

It's true the clean up is going slower than originally planned, but progress is being made despite the negative press propaganda to the contrary. The Iraqis are taking more and more responsibility for their country every day yet the MSM keeps harping on how badly things are going. Reality has little to do with their political propaganda machine.

Almost 60,000 Americans died, not because of propaganda, but because their lives didn't mean anything to their commanders.

Very good point. You keyed in on the obscure fact that people die in war. This should end immediately. Vietnam was fought with the President giving the orders on how and where to fight. In Iraq the generals were given what they asked for and it worked. You cry over 58k dead in Vietnam while saying they lost. In fact three times the North Vietnamese government was at the point of surrender. Each time the Times would print something to inflame our people at home and give the Vietnamese hope. The Vietnamese freely admit that John Kerry, the New York Times, and war protesters helped their cause.
In WWI in one day of fighting they lost 58k people. In Vietnam in 11 years of fighting we lost 58k people. Had the liberals not fought so hard to get rid of Mr. Nixon the war would have ended three years sooner, but it was better to let those people die in order to make their case that Mr. Nixon was a war monger. They left out the fact that the war was started by Mr. Kennedy and escalated by Mr. Johnson or the fact that Mr. Nixon was elected because he promised an end to the war. Saving American servicemen’s lives is not the goal of the liberal it is the acquisition of power and the spread of their ideology. In a war where we lost no major or important battles and brought the enemy to their knees three separate times we were forced to quit. Just like now where we lose no battles at all we are being forced to quit. Keep up the good work spreading the propaganda for the enemy and you too will one day be allowed to die for the winning side you so happily cheer for.

"I am sure when you pray {if you pray} it is to your heroes, like Mao, Adolph, Stalin, pol pot, ho chi, and the great men of Al qaeda, hamas, and Hezbollah."

You talk about freedom and then try and characterize what Whoman says above as terrorist propaganda? You've reached a new low, moderateman.

"Keep up the good work spreading the propaganda for the enemy and you too will one day be allowed to die for the winning side you so happily cheer for."

Don't you accuse me of cheering for the enemy. I have a solid record of supporting the effort in Iraq and mourning the fact that the LEADERS OF OUR MILITARY pull back every time the political wind changes. THE MILITARY AND CIVILIAN leaders in these wars bowed to pressure, the damned press can't make policy. If politicians sacrifice lives because of public perception blame THEM.

The pig headed farce that is ultra-conservatism on JU sickens me. Again, thank Brad I can't exile people for being idiots. IF you had said that to Brad you can bet you'd have been exiled.

Anyone who says I am a cheerleader for terrorists won't be welcome on my blog, though, bank on it.

By Moderateman: We never lost a major battle in Vietnam, yet most Americans thought we lost the war>

Correct. However you can win all the battles and still lose the war. War is "Diplomacy By Other Means". Each war MUST have a purpose, otherwise it is just pure barbarian aggression. If at the end, the war achieved its stated purpose, then it is won otherwise it is lost.
Any arguement beyond that is really useless.

By the way, changing the war's stated purpose is a clear indication that the original one is unachievable i.e. the war is unwinnable.

Don't you accuse me of cheering for the enemy. I have a solid record of supporting the effort in Iraq and mourning the fact that the LEADERS OF OUR MILITARY pull back every time the political wind changes.

It appears I hurt your feelings for that I am sorry, it was not my intention to be personal, more to make a point. Disagreement with our government within the country is a needed, good and healthy thing for various reasons. What is dangerous and unhealthy is taking that same message outside our borders. That is the cheerleading that I don’t agree with.

No, that's not what you said. You said:

"Keep up the good work spreading the propaganda for the enemy and you too will one day be allowed to die for the winning side you so happily cheer for."

I don't and haven't cheered for the enemy. I don't play cheerleader for corrupt politicians that needlessly toss away the lives of brave soldiers, either. Those lives are thrown away when they sacrifice them for a goal only to pull back in fear of political damage.

For that you and the rest here blame the press. If the press told you to jump off a cliff, would you? If the president now, or in 1972, wasn't a big enough man to do what he believed was right, and instead hesitated and balked every time the polls turned against him, that isn't the press's fault, is it?

Sure, the press influences what people think, but once leaders are in office they are sworn to do the best job they can, not bow to every whim of the polled masses. If a President is to much of a panty waist to do that, then perhaps faulting anyone else is just giving him a pass.

I don't cheer for the enemy. I like to see enemies dead. When we have the ability to kill them and don't because we fear political stain, I don't fault the press. I fault the men that had the power to accomplish the goal and then didn't because of personal political goals.

Those lives are thrown away when they sacrifice them for a goal only to pull back in fear of political damage.

This is what has been going on since the first person died in Iraq. For the political goal of taking the White House and Congress the Democrats have been screaming that it was all Mr. Bush's fault, he can't run the war properly and that people are dying over there for no reason. What person in their right mind is going to support an effort their leaders are saying is wrong, and ill fought? The people in the military get it and are doing their jobs.

For that you and the rest here blame the press. If the press told you to jump off a cliff, would you? If the president now, or in 1972, wasn't a big enough man to do what he believed was right, and instead hesitated and balked every time the polls turned against him, that isn't the press's fault, is it?

I disagree with you here. It is the fault of the press. The Press is the fourth branch of government; they have a mandate to keep Americans informed of what is going on. This mandate is in the constitution which is why the government can’t shut down a news organization without jumping through a lot of hoops. We are supposed to decide what is important and what is not, and based on the information we have been given from the press we put pressure on our elected officials to do what we hired them to do. That is how it is supposed to work.

The majority of the press believes it is their job to slant a story in such a way that the reader comes to their conclusion. When FOX came on the scene with the tag line of fair and balanced the rest of the media was apoplectic because FOX had the temerity to suggest the others were not fair or balanced. They did something that had not been done in decades. They presented the news without slant. My goodness the audacity to trust the viewer to come up with the right answer on their own and without the media’s help was sacrilege.

The Democrats have been using the media forever and they could always count on the media to help them win for the most part. Not a conspiracy by any stretch but they had sympathizers that would help when they could. When you have a war going on and the big news items are how Mr. Bush lied to get us into a war, or that he somehow failed to serve his full term of military service decades ago, or if they cover the war they want to tell everyone how many service people are being killed for no reason shows the misdirection being applied. Two thirds of Iraq is quiet with no serious attacks, people walk the streets at night with no problems so why are they focusing on the one third that is in turmoil? It is all designed to put pressure on our leaders in the Congress and the Executive branches. Why is it that the press screams that we need more troops but neglects to mention that Congress can add to the number of troops any time they pass a bill into law? The President does not have to ask for more troops they can just add it any time. But that would make it too easy and there is no way the Democrats will do anything to make life easy for this president.

The polls are what are driving public opinion not the other way around because now the news media is commissioning polls with slanted questions in order to drive news stories. They commission a poll and surprise, they have a news story. This poll then becomes the story that proves their point as opposed to writing it up as an opinion piece. It is called inventing the news. Here is a poll for you. Do you want your children murdered in the streets; murdered at home; or not murdered at all? I will assume you said not at all. New poll suggest that America is against sending their children to Iraq because of massive deaths. Only if you get to see the poll questions do you find out what people were really answering to. The poll questions are available if you know where to look for them or pay for them but how many people actually read the poll questions when you can read the headline?

No, the press is called that in its own smugness, but the press couldn't stop Bush from finishing the job, say, in Fallujah. They have no veto, no vote, and the President doesn't have to check with them. He had the opportunity for victory, and he allowed political PR concerns to cloud his judgment.

That isn't the fault of the press. You have a lot of well thought-out points there, but in the end it all relies on the idea that the press needs to be involved in the President's thought processes. Doesn't the mere fact of the bias you are talking about invalidate them as a source of information????

Listen, if you guys are smart enough to see how biased and unrepresentative the press is... are you saying the President is that stupid not to? If as you say the press is cheerleading for the enemy, then wouldn't the president be actually obeying the ENEMY when he obeys the press?

So, instead of disproving the press by handing them overwhelming victories, we fulfill their prophesies by cowering away every time an ill political wind blows. Make sense to you? If you were building a house, and your hateful inlaws came by every day to tell you that you were going to fail, would you walk off with it half finished in the belief it would make them happy?

Well, that's what we've done, over and over. Blame the press if you like, but I am going to blame the people who have the final say on the walking off.

Enemy propaganda?. Doubt you'd consider Colin Powell the enemy or an enemy cheerleader, yet that's a pretty frank statement, wouldn't you say?

No, the press is called that in its own smugness, but the press couldn't stop Bush from finishing the job, say, in Fallujah. They have no veto, no vote, and the President doesn't have to check with them. He had the opportunity for victory, and he allowed political PR concerns to cloud his judgment.

I don't know of this situation so I can't comment.

That isn't the fault of the press. You have a lot of well thought-out points there, but in the end it all relies on the idea that the press needs to be involved in the President's thought processes. Doesn't the mere fact of the bias you are talking about invalidate them as a source of information????

Thank you for your kind words. The purpose of the press is to inform the people who then put the pressuer on the elected officials. When Mr. Bush ignored the press and the people he was then painted by the press as out of touch and in a bubble. An argument he had to answer if he wanted to keep the confidence of the people. So even when the press is ignored by a president the impact is still there.

Listen, if you guys are smart enough to see how biased and unrepresentative the press is... are you saying the President is that stupid not to? If as you say the press is cheerleading for the enemy, then wouldn't the president be actually obeying the ENEMY when he obeys the press?

Again the press is not the enemy the liberals are not the enemy but there are times when the enemy’s goals fit nicely with the liberal goals. Ask any news person why they got into the field they will most likely tell you they joined to make a difference. That means they are out there with an agenda. The purpose of journalism is to report the facts not add commentary or opinion that is what the opinion page is for. We the people of the United States are supposed to form an opinion based on the news reported to us. Read any news paper and you will rarely read a story that does not have an opinion or slant to it. Right or left, conservative or liberal they are all doing the country a disservice. In tilting the story, like not reporting the good things happening, is just as bad as reporting only the good things. The fact is that we are winning and doing serious damage to terrorist around the world. The fact is we have had some screw ups. But if you read the papers and watch the news you will see more bad than good when the reverse is true. Add to that that the people like to read bad news and it explains why we see so much of it. But it needs to be balanced out or we will give up in frustration like we did in Vietnam.

So, instead of disproving the press by handing them overwhelming victories, we fulfill their prophesies by cowering away every time an ill political wind blows. Make sense to you? If you were building a house, and your hateful inlaws came by every day to tell you that you were going to fail, would you walk off with it half finished in the belief it would make them happy?

Not so much to make them happy but to stop hearing the crap. Once again I point to Vietnam where we were winning all over the place but we gave up because we lost too many men in the fight. We dishonored our servicemen so we won’t feel bad about losing. Makes no sense but that is what happened and I fear it will happen again.

Hey Modman are you okay dude? just checking in, I have not seen you on JU lately and wandering if you are okay.