My Photo

Feeds

  • Add to My Yahoo!

« Could neutrinos destroy nuclear weapons? | Main | NBC's Richard Engel Justifies Green Zone Reporting »

Comments

Nabil Ahmad

The Mainstream Media is ideologically driven to hate George W. Bush and all that he stands for. If it was Bill Clinton leading this war, they would be cheerleading him and vilifying our enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere.

But because George W. Bush is a conservative Republican, he is a worse enemy than the Baathists and others because a victory for Bush would translate into a defeat for liberalism and socialism.

And the Mainstream Media will have none of that. They'd rather see the USA torn to shreds than admit that their warped ideology is really what is is...rubbish.

The War on Terror needs to be fought in more than one front. The main front is being fought by our military against the Baathists, Al Qaida and their allies. A second front needs to be opened up against reporters and journalists who actively or passively work with America's enemies. They need to be exposed and pilloried and disgraced in front of TV screens for the general public to see. They need to be brought low and disgraced beyond redemption to the point where they throw hysterical fits in front of TV cameras. They need to be made into the story.

It can be done. Dan Rather was brought down, along with Mary Mapes, and now they've become screaming, shrieking, hysterical nothings. Who's next?

1st Cav

There are already several websites and public access TV channels airing enemy propaganda.

In Louisiana you have Acadiana Open Channel (AOC), http://www.aocinc.org/welcome_aoc/welcome.html , that is a publicly funded non-profit entity that feeds to many other public access TV channel nationwide and internationally. One program in particular that is of particular concern is the disinformation "Current Issues" program. It's produced by a Hesham Tillawi aka Hesham Mohd. Tillawi also runs the website www.currentissues.tv that is known to broadcast outright lies.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in public funding of enemy propaganda.

Scott Malensek

(as posted elsewhere)
They told us that removing a dictator was immoral.

They told us that Pres Bush was so brilliant, and they so stupid that he was able to manipulate intelligence reports and trick them into authorizing war. Later we found out from the WP that only a handful of members of Congress even looked at the intelligence reports before authorizing the war. Nearly a half dozen bi-partisan, independent, and international investigations have found that it was a decades-old decrepit intelligence network that lead to 911 and the pre-war Iraq intelligence failures.

Then they sent us an ambassador to tell us Bush made up all the claims about uranium, but it turned out the ambassador was lying and so too were his claims that the President outed his spy wife (yeah, real low key cover being the wife of an ambassador).

Then they told us there was no connection between Iraq and 911, but the attacks' mastermind conceded that they were set in motion immediately after Pres Clinton's 12/98 attack on Iraq, and Bin Laden's strategic planner, Zawahiri, is on record has having "vow[ed] to retaliate for what the Americans have done to their brothers in Iraq."

Then they told us that Saddam was just "a bad guy" and compelled us to look the other way on the idea that he'd killed half a million Iraqis who rose up-at America's insistence in 1992-for Democracy.

They sent us poorly photo-shopped press photos of terrorists being oppressed in Lebanon, and they denied the lie as long as they could.

They sent us a long list of faked stories from un-named sources who later turned out to be making up stories to further their political agendas, and they denied it as long as they could.

They showed us videos made by terrorists sniping American soldiers and claimed that they were showing the terrorist propaganda videos as news-while looking the other way that it was still propaganda (you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig).

They show us pictures that insurgents stage, turned in to them, and then claimed that the photos are "representative" of what's happening, but encourage us to look the other way at the remaining fact that they are not actual captures of time (rather captures of imagination).

Now it's been revealed that not just the WP, NYT, LAT, Reuters, but also AP have chosen to publish and circulate around the world false stories that have likely been provided by the enemy (yeah, the insurgents are in fact...the enemy), and they've done so (again) out of either utter stupidity coupled with complete unprofessionalism, OR they've done it deliberately as part of supporting the enemy's propaganda effort to distort the picture of what's happening in the war on terror.

When will the truth outweigh the lies-uh, I mean, "errors in reporting"?

When will people swallow hard and realize that their partisan disdain, their post911 fears/concerns, and the shadow of their own personal Vietnam experiences have been played upon by people with their own political agendas, their terrorist campaigns, and/or their sensationalist reporting schemes in search of career-building scoops and awards given no longer for great news, but for the greatest fiction?

Until then, we have to wait for our friends, our neighbors, our brothers, our fathers....our soldiers...to come home and tell us the truth following their shock and awe at returning and seeing the reports that we see.

The comments to this entry are closed.

TipJar

Tip Jar

Saddam's Secret Terror Documents

google

Newsvine World News