57b5592de1b5f0b7536b…

Clinton says we cannot win. The media noticeably slows coverage of the war as soon as Petraeus testifies that we’re doing quite well, except for the rare bad news, and one sided perspectives of the lead up to the war.
Well, Iraqis have a positive…

Disappearing Posts on “Hot Air[e]”
How’s that go again “Eddy…”?

Why would you dissapear olde posts…?
EDDY….?

“fatigue factor”

That’s as big of a pile of steaming BS as nobama saying he never heard his mentor’s hate speech until just recently.

Its really easy the don’t want to report of the victories and accomplishments because it under cuts their premise that this is another Vietnam , and they want to make a name for themselves just like some others did back in the late 60’s by lying to the American people and not showing them the other side of the story . You put American troops kicking ass and taking names sending jihadist to Allah’s whore house and rib shack places like rahmadi and faluga being peaceful in comparison to what they use to be and the American people will turn on the anti war anti American moonbats and msm faster than a 10k$ a hour hooker sells her story to the tabloids.

I think the dems are assuming they will have someone in the White House this time next year, and they know they will need to continue the war in Iraq. They just need to craft the spin so that when they don’t immediately withdraw the troops, they can blame it on Bush for leaving them a ‘mess’ to clean up.

If the dems aren’t screaming about it, the MSM won’t repeat it ad nauseam.

So, in my opinion, we will see many of those who claim to be opposed to the war, come to support the war once the dems are in power.

If it weren’t so damn dangerous, it would be funny watching these fools go full circle ‘for the war/ against the war/ for the war’ being the lemmings they are.

However, as soon as the Dims can figure out a way to spin the success in Iraq as a result of their policies/pressure, then the media will trumpet the cause again.

Media ignores Iraq

Today’s New York Times has two stories about Iraq on the cover, with a full-page jump on A6, a feature story on Kurdistan and a list of the nine latest KIA on A8 and a half-page jump on A15.

That’s in addition to two more stories on the wider Middle East (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, respectively).

Imagine if the bastards didn’t ignore Iraq…

Blaming it on the viewers isn’t new, either, just another tired excuse.

The reporters failed in their bid to lose the war for us before the election, so now they don’t even want to talk about it.

Sick bastards.

Ever wonder what happened to all of the news coverage coming from Iraq after – let’s say – last September? General Petraeus reported in September that the surge was working, but we had more to do. Things were – and are – much better in Iraq. Some…

a capella on March 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM

What about Obama?

“I’m not sure that the success in Anbar has anything to do with the surge,” Mr. Obama said today at the first of two hearings featuring General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. “You yourself said it was political.”

I’ll argue that’s false and I have the MSM to prove it. No matter how much you criticize them they won’t report the good news. So, let them use whatever excuse they want for staying away. They’ll leave our military alone to concentrate on their successful work uninterrupted and they won’t be stirring up Iraqi animosities and fears.

The media, which like support the Democrats mostly bid on failure, seems churlishly determined not to report on the success for reasons other than “fatigue”.

clarification