This is even lamer than the "Iraq war has gone on longer than World War II" stories:
The latest deaths also brought the number of U.S. military members killed since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003 to at least 2,978 — five more than the number killed in the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
You can't even think about doing that math, let alone sitting down to write the sentence and stick it in a supposedly objective news story, without having a mindset that says "This war is wrong, President Bush is evil, and it's time for him to admit it and get us out of there." How many people died at Pearl Habor? At what point during World War II did the number of U.S. military members killed equal that number?
Comments
Unfortunately Leo, common sense and decency no longer factor in to the daily news cycles when it pertains to the current administration.
This is one more of the liberal kookeries that started with the beginning of the war. Previous wars have cost the USA one heck of a lot more dead Americans, but the lefties count the dead in Iraq with a fervor so overwrought that it betrays their failed strategy, which was clearly to try to turn us all against the war on the numbers alone.
Given that Viet Nam cost America 50,000 dead, and both world wars many, many more than that, this action is by far the least deadly that we have ever fought.
Besides that, we went into the Middle East to avenge an act of war as well as to lance a boil called radical Islamist terrorism. Contrary to what these hand-wringers would like you and me to assume, America never said we'd pack up and run for home if our casualties became one more than the number killed on 9/11. In fact, if we want to be realistic, we were very lucky that the number of dead did not rise to 15,000-30,000 in the Twin Towers, as we first feared. The capacity of those two buildings alone was so high that except for a lot of people getting out, that criminal act could have snuffed out the lives of ten times as many people.
All these entirely artificial milestones we keep seeing on the anti-war news outlets have been manufactured out of whole cloth by political wimps with no stomach to do what history proves has to be done now and then to discourage foul elements from daring to attack Americans.
The fact that there are clear signals that certain countries who are not our friends are much less likely to provoke us now that we've "over-reacted" to 9/11 gets very little coverage. Nevertheless, the signs are there. For all of the mess and confusion, no other nation wants to risk giving us a reason to be next. The rare crazy dictator may be willing, but no nation wants to draw our fire.
Well put Steve. The singlemost reason for the public "turning against" the most recent wars (both Viet Nam & Iraq) is the press coverage. No offense Leo, but the vast majority in your biz have a serious agenda, and it's got nothing to do with the facts. The press has always had an abundance of opportunists, but until Viet Nam they never had the technology to inform the entire world instantaneously. By the mid to late 60's television was in damn near every house, and reporters and news organizations began to realize what print media had long enjoyed by itself,that they could actually shape and change public opinion. (on a much grander scale)
It's not exactly rocket science, advertisers have known for eons that repetition makes believers out of consumers. The news has the very same effect, over and over and over again.
What do you think of when you hear:
Geico.........cute lizard/insurance
Starbucks.....expensive coffee
Papa Johns....pizza
Three companies that six years ago had a presence, but now dominate. Saturation marketing absolutely works, and George Bush has had 6 years of 24 hour a day a media saturation by the press, and very little (if any )has been good. The results are pretty obvious and equally frightening.
Tim -
I think it's finally time to say out loud that I enjoy your comments.
As for Geico, to he11 with the lizard! -- the metrosexual cavemen are proving to be infectiously hilarious.
Who knew that two slightly effeminate Neanderthals sharing an apartment and finding a caveman-o-phobic advertisement "RILLY condescending" -- subsequently ordering the "duck with mango sauce" at lunch with a guilty marketing exec, and most recently being dismissed as having gotten up "on the wrong side of the rock this morning" could be so disarmingly funny?
Has somebody finally found a minority that is okay to make fun of?
Thank you Steve, I think you're right, the cavemen are eclipsing the lizard...They (geico) have a particularly effective (and cheeky) campaign.
Tim: You think I shouldn't be offended when you imply that because I'm a journalist I must want to make people believe things that are not true? What if I said that, no offense, Tim, but BROKERS try to get people to buy HOUSES they don't want? What's that, TIM, that wouldn't make sense because WHY? Because brokers are what, ETHICAL, Tim? Excuse me, I think my duck is ready.
Ooooo...someone got up on the wrong side of the "rock"...LMAO!
;)
B.G.
Leo, notice I didn't say "you" I said "vast majority of people in your biz". My belief is the vast majority in your line of work are NOT journalists but rather wannabe actors and authors with far less talent than necessary. Still, there are a good number of journalists who are beyond reproach, (you included) that approach a story with open eyes and consider all the possibilities. When you editorialize you are pretty damn fair about it.
There is a percentage of people in all walks of life that lie, stretch, fabricate, obfuscate, and take advantage of the masses. That includes us brokers, and doctors, accountants, priests,bankers, restaraunt workers,newspaper delivery persons, etc etc etc.... that's undeniable.
My point is, in the world of news reporting the product is not digested by a targeted market of consumers per se, the product is "flung" 24-7 upon the entire world and has the power to actually change the way people think and act in a way consumerism never can, and when a prepondonderence of the product is tilted a certain way for a long period of time it has an undeniable effect on the masses.
Tim: Apparently, my joke-telling ability, such as it is, deserted me. I wasn't trying to make a serious point, merely do a quick and crude parody of one of the commercials you and Steve were talking about, with journalist and broker substituted for caveman and therapist. As it happens, I agree with much of what you say about what goes on in my profession these days.
"We went into the Middle East to avenge an act of war as well as to lance a boil called radical Islamist terrorism."
If that's what we did and why we did it, we're either deranged or really, really stupid. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 specifically or Islamic extremism generally. The folks who arranged the attacks of 9/11 were almost entirely Saudis and Egyptians. Aside from the Saudis and the Afghanis (who we rightly dealt with), Pakistan seems to be the biggest source of Islamic extremists associated with terrorism. And, if you're keeping score, the Saudis and Pakistanis are deemed to be our allies.
The only credible association to terrorism I've heard about Hussein was that he offered money to families of Palestinian's who committed acts of terrorism against Israelis. And that fight seems to be a lot more about nationalism and disputes over proper title to real estate than with the kind of terrorism espoused and practiced by bin Laden & co.
I just wish the so called liberal media had called bullshit when the Bush administration was peddling it before we invaded Iraq instead of being uncritical stenographers of White House spin.
>The only credible association to terrorism
>I've heard
What we find credible differs, sometimes even (gasp!) in a partisan way.
You can lance a boil anywhere and start it draining; likewise you can begin to drain a swamp at any convenient point. Bombing tents in Afghanistan alone was never going to cleanse the Middle East of the spreading weed of Al-Qaeda, though by liberal lights that would have been an "appropriate" response. And we'd still have a war theater here instead of in Iraq.
Leftist ideologues in the country were never going to be happy and I seem to recall they DID harp from the start about anything and everything regardless of true merit.
Leo, it wasn't your joke telling ability, It was one of my "brain dead" moments....
Now I get it! And it's funny!
Sorry about that..
so , 2978 people dying needlessly is lame? I guess you don't have a loved one over there Leo or any of you other war mongers. All you've done is sit here and bash the "liberal" press. Doug said it best. Osama did 9/11 so why aren' we after them? I rest my case.
So this lady claims our troops die "needlessly," while not being able to mention the liberal press without putting it in quotes?
So, unless the NSA reports all its secret ops to this particular unbeliever, they can't possibly be "after him?" Let's put it in Dirty Harry terms: Rest your case...go ahead...make my day.