Good news doesn't sell newspapers or fit the liberal political agenda of portraying EVERYTHING about American involvement in Iraq as evil dripping from the foul hands of a war mongering president who thirsts for the blood of our nation's youth so he can practice satanic rituals in the boardroom of Haliburton with Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld.

"it is intended to discourage American citizens"...

It is intended to ENcourage the American voter to help the democrats regain their power back as their 'ideas' have been such a miserable failure at the ballot box.

WOW! Watch the video here:

http://www.rnc.org/Default.aspx

Smackdown!

While the "progress" listed sounds good, what happened for it to only be happening now?

Were Iraqi children not in school before the US military fiasco? Were there no hospitals functional? Did other countries not have embassy's open? Were the refineries not operational?

Why are all of these things "good news?"

Iraq was in a downward spiral and eventually would have succombed to an "internal" civil war/unrest. Yet, the powers that be in the USA felt the dire need to "protect" the USA from Iraq! Yet, there was nothing that the USA needed to be protected from regarding Iraq.

So while many feel that the US media outlets are not presenting the "good news" that is happening, who is to say that other news media are not doing so? The US media is portraying the reality of what is happening, not some fictional narrative.

Had the US not intervened in the matters of a sovereign nation, NONE of this would be an issue.

So, before whinning about the "none reporting" of something remember the above FACT!

Shalom

Post Saddam Iraq - a detailed statistical view"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/post_saddam_iraq/html/1.stm

Nice impartial link, Hugh.

By all means, shoot the messenger James. :-)

I'm just saying ... Cherry picked quotes.

... No Question in my mind these are a bunch of politicians.

... No Question in my mind these politicians are playing games for their own enrichment, and you and I are the pawns.

... No Question in my mind things are efd-up in Iraq - and there is no elegant solution; there may not even be a US Friendly solution.

... No Question in my mind things that regardless of what happens in Iraq, there will remain hordes of wacko's blowing themselves up.

No Question in my mind there is the lack of a plan.

No Question in my mind the President and Congress all know this.

No Question in my mind the President is diverting attention from the lack of a plan by encouraging everyone to point fingers at the other guy - giving them time to play games for there own enrichment while waiting for the next round of elections to send him home, and let someone else deal with this efd-up mess in Iraq.

.. not that I'm cynical or anything ...

All I can say is, it's nice to hear BOTH sides of the story. It's nice to know that there are some improvements in Iraq.

I am a discouraged American citizen.

Checked out Hugh's link. It was the GOP website. My computer must be a liberal Democrat because when I tried to look at the video, it shut down. Took that as a sign and did not return to the GOP website, although I am sure it is nonpartisan and totally true, certainly not a Hilary bashing site, since bashing is bad.

Checked out James' link. It talked about the lack of promised reconstruction. IMO the good things we are doing in Iraq are merely cleaning up the mess we made. Our bombs took out the buildings, electricity, etc.

Also would like to know where Richard got all his statistics and how the figures compare to what Iraq was like before we attacked, for the ordinary citizen. Another question: If Iraq is doing so well, why don't we just come on home and let them run their country?

It is refreshing to hear about some of the good things happening in Iraq. Of course I want to hear the bad things as well. But I agree that the good seems to get pushed aside for the bad because the bad is more sensational. That's not just true in Iraq but most stories printed in newspapers.

I am glad Richard Lewis decided to write this letter because it is great to hear something positive for a change. Things I have never heard reported in any media outlet.

I agree with Carol and Darryl that there are also a lot of negative aspects of this war. And I think it is okay to question the validity of the war. Quite frankly, although I feel that we had good reason to fear Saddam's regime, I think the administration flunked on documenting and persuading the general public that the war is worth the fight. I think it is, but my opinion of that largely comes from the years of information that was provided before W came into office.

But honestly, I wonder if Carol and Darryl (and many other Americans) would feel the same about the situation if they had been receiving a balanced view of things in Iraq all along. That is not only a failure on the part of the media but also a failure on the part of this administration.

Good news is meaningful only when taken in context. For example, today is sunny with no rain which is good, but we are desperately needing rain, which is bad.
Good news in Iraq needs to be taken in context with what we had before we killed thousands of Iraqis and Americans. So let's compare the situation now with before the war when talking about embassies, immunizations, schools, hospitals, infrastructure like electricity and so on. Let's compare Sadaam's hit squads with the new, improved Shiite hit squads.
This one-sided propaganda piece criticizes just what it is doing.
At the end of the day, a sovereign nation was attacked for false reasons. That nation is now losing its citizens at an alarming rate. The occupying nation does not count the dead, so we only get glimpses(balanced reporting???) Where I come from, killing one innocent person is unacceptable and unbalanced regardless of how many bombed out buildings are rebuilt.
How dare someone defend the killing of people with statistics about property and televised debates (where most don't even have electricity)!

Hmm, would I feel the same about the Iraqi situation if I had been receiving a balanced view of things all along?

Well, I can honestly say that for me, NO!

You see, as a pacifist, I abhor war. I find no reason for violence. My faith tradition (Religous Society of Friends) has a tradition of opposing violence/war. I stan with this in accordance with my understanding of scripture and the teaching of Jesus the Christ.

So, I find the entire situation unfounded and unneccessary. Again, to restate the position, a sovereign nation attacked and put in chaos for no foundational reason is totally wrong.

So, had a sovereign nation not been invaded, there would be no situation to even be discussed. And due to my pacificism, I am TOTALLY against war/conflict.

I hope this gives some insight to my observations of this entire quagmire.

Shalom

Here's a little poll that tells where I'm coming from.Another survey...
Of the 1400 members of the national media who were surveyed:

44% considered themselves Democrats
16% Repubs
34% independents
89% voted for Clinton in 1992
7% voted for Bush in 1992
Freedom Forum sponsored poll, 1992

Is there any question what the media wants the public to think of Iraq and why?

Sorry, Daryl. I had forgotten that you were anti-war and that your belief was basically that no war is justified. So I can understand why, regardless of the reporting, you would be against it. Beliefs are beliefs and I will definitely not argue against yours or anyone else's.

But for many, I do think perception is based a lot on what is seen on television. I, like you, try to found my beliefs on what God would want, not what NBC or FoxNews has to say.

While I don't believe exactly as you do regarding justification for war, I respect your opinion.

neocon, you raise an interesting point. What I have wondered is, aren't most of the media outlets owned by big corporations, many of whom are contributors to politicos. Wouldn't it be in their interests to coerce the media to promote whoever is in charge?

Of course the bad makes the news, because that is what draws in the ratings (and it transcends party lines). How many people tune into the news to hear about all the car accidents that didn't happen, or the bombs that didnt explode. Bottom line is Americans tune in to the horror stories of what goes wrong in the world. This is not a recent phenomenon. When Clinton was in office the news was innundated with his troubles and everything that his opponents felt he did wrong (although some of us seem to forget how nasty things got back then too, and journalists political opinions were the same then and it didnt stop them from talking about him incessently). Also, the increasing popularity of the 24 hour news networks has increased the focus on terror and mayhem rather that warm and fuzzy stories. In that highly competitive field it seems that each of those stations run the same stories in an attempt to catch the most viewers. Frankly I would like to see a healthier balance of both the good and the bad, but I doubt that it will happen in the current world we live in (no matter who is in charge or what the political affiliations of reporters are) Ratings and money are the only thing they are beholden to (and ego)and freakishly bad news sells (unfortunately).

Here's a little poll of surveyed listeners to Rush:

99% considered themselves Republicans
1% considered themselves Independents
99% voted for Bush in 1992

OK - I'm kidding - but here's a REAL quote from Rush:

"My listeners don't know what's happening until they hear it from me."

My Point?

It's a fair assumption that those working in the media are more informed then the average Joe - after all, it's their job to follow what's going on. Perhaps the poll results posted by NeoCON reflect a group with more knowledge about what's going on.

... and as a reminder - for 1992:
43% of the popular vote went to Clinton
37% of the popular vote went to Bush 41
19% of the popular vote went to Perot

The bottom line and the elephant in the room is that what was once a stable country that was not a theocracy and had secure borders is now, thanks to the neocons, a haven for al quaida [who were not there before] and has a government closely aligned with Iran. Boy....that sure backfired on Cheney etal.

Astro Boy, The way I read this poll is that the vast majority of those in the media are registered democrats and therefore have a tendency to slant the news to favor their party and reporting the 'down' side of the war on terror is in the best interest of the democrats. (they believe) When (and you can argue IF) the tide turns in this war we will read stories about how Hillary and a good number of her co-horts in the senate voted for the war and thanks in large part to them we have turned the corner in Iraq. Does anyone doubt this? Not me. Big media does contribute to politicans. I have no data but it would be interesting to see how much went where. Anybody have this data? I ask in earnest.

I don't believe the poll was taken as a measurment of 'knowledge'. I thought a reporter's job was to observe what was happening in a story and record them for print or whatever.(accurately,one would hope)Not much knowledge required for that. The lies from the media about the situation in the astrodome during Katrina is a prime example of the media wanting to sway public opinion. Does this take a lot of 'knowledge'? Not imo.It does take the belief that the people are stupid in general and will swallow anything they care to print. But this is getting harder to sell thanks to other news sources, internet,etc..

"43% of the popular vote went to Clinton" And you would have thought by listening to the MSM that he won by a landslide that would have made Castro jealous. I guess one can read anything they want into a poll. (smarter than the average joe). But the fact remains that a large majority of the members of the media are democrats with an agenda.

All the above was im(less than average joe)o, of course!

Turned the Corner? Too early to tell, ya ask me. I'll have a good answer in about 10 years.

Iraq far from calm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4448078.stm

Iran far from calm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1645457,00.html

Algeria-in-Iraq
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1549369,00050001.htm

Iran-in-Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144300,00.html

Iran-in-Iraq
http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20051117-111459-9302r.htm

Poverty-in-Iraq
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C4ECF37E-ADBE-4C13-BDA5-2CB166E5F59D.htm

.... I can go on - and I'M NOT doom and glooming it, just providing a basis for "Too early to tell ... I'll have a good answer in about 10 years."

"Too early to tell"

Entirely off subject.

""My listeners don't know what's happening until they hear it from me.""

JDR, if you take that seriously then you lack the humorbone necessary to tell when Rush is being an entertainer(which includes sarcasm/skewering sacred cows/using the absurd to illustrate absurdity) and when he is being a pundit.

The first problem, Hugh - is first because I believe he said it seriously - I heard it.

The second problem is that even if he said it as an entertainer, many take him seriously.

Sorry - the man [and his like] are a danger to America.

I'm sure you disagree.

neo - Not entirely off subject, infact exactly on the target you set in the second, third, and fourth sentences of your 11-17 8:43 post:

" ... we have turned the corner in Iraq. Does anyone doubt this? No Me."

ALSO - if you really wanna know how much "
media" or any other group or company contributed to the parties, go look - it's out there in Spades.

... with the exception of those the contributed to Delay's "Foundation For Kids" - which let's companies and individuals send as much as they like into this huge slush fund, where a some part that goes to a truly good purpose, but the rest goes where-ever Delay decides. It's blind to ALL audit - and surpise surpise all but two congress-folk have benefited from it to the limit of the law, which is $20,000 per congress-folk. No wonder they have been so supportive.

My post read:" When (and you can argue IF)the tide turns in this war we will read stories about how Hillary and a good number of her co-horts in the senate voted for the war and thanks in large part to them we have turned the corner in Iraq. Does anyone doubt this?" Unquote.

To take half a sentence and twist it is somewhat..... dishonest? Underhanded?

But then after watching the MSM and their supportes twist the truth I have come to expect no less.

And who was that that posted this comment:"I'm just saying...Cherry picked quotes."???

I suppose it depends which side of the fence one is on whether those "cherry picked quotes" are good or bad,huh?

You're right - I'm wrong. It wasn't an intentional cherry pick, but I clearly missed the connection from the first half to the last half of the "sentence".

I'm not sure what MSM is.

For the record: I listen to NPR on the way to work, but turn it off when Danial Shore starts to pontificate (hate that guy).

Speaking of hate - I also often catch a bit of Rush at lunch - perhaps 15 minutes or so. Occassionally he provides interesting perspective, and I can take his pontification (I just laugh at his ego), but can only take so much of his 1/2 truths.

I am a fairly regular viewer of the Leyher News Hour - thank goodness for TiVo - and usually in the very early mornings, I skim the BBC, the CS Monitor, and the WN, following their stories and links as my interest wills.

Oh - and I usually read the New-Journal at lunch.

I always have a book beside the bed for reading, usually history. Currently it's "Founding Brothers" (slow but interesting read); before that "Ghost Soldiers" (quick read about The Hike). So far, this year: "The Last Best Hope ..." (about Lincoln's political conflicts); "Collapse" (very interesting read on recent studies into the failure of civilizations); "The Tragedy and Triumph of Phenix City, Alabama" about a incredibly corrupt county in Alabama, and a fascinating study of the abuse of power; "The Politically Incorrect History of the United States" (I liked it!); "The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell" (dairy of a Soldier in Iraq) ... and I guess that's it for this year.

So does that make me a MSM'er? Whatever.

Excellent information there James. 56% of the population voted against Bill Clinton and he still won the presidency. There should have been a run-off.

I don't pay Rush Limbaugh much serious attention. Though I did get a few laughs from him on the footage he used to show of Bill Clinton back during Clinton's presidency.

I actually think Rush is a much better entertainer than Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore.

But, honestly, I don't take any of those blowhards seriously and most of the time can't even stand to listen to them bark.

One must be careful when accepting information from a past drug abuser. And I'm not just referring to Rush.