Why do you think the mainstream media has ignored exposing the lies behind the Iraq war? (Harry Reid, Colin Powell)

[odanny]

While this reasons for starting this bastard of a war have been thoroughly debunked, I'm curious as to why the media has not exposed this war in the mainstream media to listeners and viewers who tune in.

Do they feel an obligation to remain complicit because speaking the truth would expose them as well as those who lied? The media has actually cheerleaded for this war, "embedding" journalists , as per Pentagon directive, and in turn, whenever doing any "negative" reporting, they will, in turn, do some inspirational puff piece on the one in a million Iraqi who gets a new school/bicycle/trip to Disneyworld instead of the other thousands who are dead and/or living with relatives cause their parents are gone.

I believe the media is just afraid to report the truth. The dont want to do their job because it is SO much easier not to. They think there is a "stigma" of some kind with being critical of the 6 year disaster also known as the illegitimate invasion and occupation of a foreign nation.

This lack of reporting only exposes the mainstream media as being propaganda.

[ovcatto]

"While this reasons for starting this bastard of a war have been thoroughly debunked..."

Just out of curiosity, where did you read or see this debunking? Personally, I read most of the debunk on the pages o the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, and McClatchy, Not that I want to defend the pre-war in the tank coverage, but in on those same pages and broadcast I read or heard the objections of people like Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, Richard Clarke and others.

[jtur88]

Because all the huge corporations that own the mainstream media, in order to rake in the advertising dollars of other huge corporations, hire only radical extremist liberal reporters and editors.

When Colin Powell went to the UN and showed them proof of WMDs, didn't you hear the mainstream liberal media screaming "Wait a minute, Colin, those are just drawings of trucks, aerial photos of the roofs of bulidings, and empty plastic vials from the UN dispensary!"

[mhouse2001]

I'll go one step further: the media is mind control. It presents a picture of reality and implies very subtly that if you don't believe what it has presented, you are not "right". What do the phrases "Part of your world...", "That's the way it is..." do to the psyche? They are ways of instilling the idea that what you've been told is actual fact, in case some small part of your gut tells you otherwise. If the truth doesn't adhere to the holograph they call reality then it is discarded and ignored. If people ask questions about it, then it is ridiculed. The media is NOT afraid to tell the truth, it simply has no intention of doing so.

What most people adamantly refuse to consider is that the reality they find themselves in is a ruse, a Potemkin village, a pack of lies. It would be the ultimate betrayal and particularly traumatic. What happens to people subjected to trauma? They withdraw, deny, escape, dissociate. In short, they become less than whole. It is a defense mechanism. The difficulty is in the return trip, in the acceptance of what happened, and the necessary assimilation of unpleasantness. Finally, one must accept the role they played in the event, however unconscious.

The problem now is that we don't have that much time to waste complaining about things. Turn off the media (and your religion if you're to be truly rid of these influences), become aware of what you think and feel and decide for yourself what happens tomorrow.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by odanny

While this reasons for starting this bastard of a war have been thoroughly debunked, I'm curious as to why the media has not exposed this war in the mainstream media to listeners and viewers who tune in.

Do they feel an obligation to remain complicit because speaking the truth would expose them as well as those who lied? The media has actually cheerleaded for this war, "embedding" journalists , as per Pentagon directive, and in turn, whenever doing any "negative" reporting, they will, in turn, do some inspirational puff piece on the one in a million Iraqi who gets a new school/bicycle/trip to Disneyworld instead of the other thousands who are dead and/or living with relatives cause their parents are gone.

I believe the media is just afraid to report the truth. The dont want to do their job because it is SO much easier not to. They think there is a "stigma" of some kind with being critical of the 6 year disaster also known as the illegitimate invasion and occupation of a foreign nation.

This lack of reporting only exposes the mainstream media as being propaganda.

It's because they don't want to bring down the Clintons for lying to Bush when he came into office and the rest of the Democrats that lied.

[geos]

Who could ever forget the heart warming Fux "News" cheer leading, I mean coverage of "Our TroopsTM" with their computer generated flag waving background and flag lapel pins and their constant whining that it's not as bad as the "liberal media" make it out to be. Never an ounce of doubt or skepticism about our noble venture to "liberate" Iraq.

The right wing war mongers created this human catastrophe and drove our country to financial ruin but you can bet they'll keep blaming the Clintons or George Soros or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or the latest scapegoat du jour. You know the chicken hawks like Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie will never accept responsibility for this historic debacle because taking responsibility is just not in their nature. They're too busy coming up with "wedge issues", ways to divide, conquer and plunder this country instead of uniting for the common good.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by odanny

While this reasons for starting this bastard of a war have been thoroughly debunked,

Have they? I wasn't aware of that. The mantra and chant of the anti-war left that, "Bush lied, people died", is a baseless claim. If there has been some lie, what is it?

But how, when all intelligence sources from this administration to the last had come to the same conclusions about Iraq and Saddam, along with corroboration from foreign sources, can it be claimed that it was a "lie", and attributed to Bush? Clearly, it cannot.

Not only this, but there is no argument from anywhere that Saddam never had engaged in development of chemical weapons. And what could be more conclusive than the fact that he had used them on his own people?

The "Bush lied" crowd hasn't got a leg to stand on, and everyone knows it.

Originally Posted by odanny

...I'm curious as to why the media has not exposed this war in the mainstream media to listeners and viewers who tune in.

Read the above. Even a press with an extreme left bias knows what "overwhelming evidence" means. When their credibility is already in the tank, they aren't going to get into the business of perpetuating a lie (that Bush lied). That would be the final nail in the coffin.

Originally Posted by odanny

Do they feel an obligation to remain complicit because speaking the truth would expose them as well as those who lied? The media has actually cheerleaded for this war, "embedding" journalists , as per Pentagon directive, and in turn, whenever doing any "negative" reporting, they will, in turn, do some inspirational puff piece on the one in a million Iraqi who gets a new school/bicycle/trip to Disneyworld instead of the other thousands who are dead and/or living with relatives cause their parents are gone.

I believe the media is just afraid to report the truth. The dont want to do their job because it is SO much easier not to. They think there is a "stigma" of some kind with being critical of the 6 year disaster also known as the illegitimate invasion and occupation of a foreign nation.

This lack of reporting only exposes the mainstream media as being propaganda.

"illegitimate invasion and occupation of a foreign nation." Cliche, after cliche. Where have we heard this claim before?

It isn't an "occupation". If we're still there after we officially claim "victory", it's an "occupation". Until then, it's still a war. And it's not "illegitimate, unless somewhere along the line defending your liberty is an "illegitimate" reason to go to war. Not in my book.
Never forget, we were attacked in 2001 by pure evil. We have a right to avenge and defend. Bush never said we wouldn't go anywhere we deemed necessary. Indeed, he said quite the opposite.

I can't help but wonder: How old are you? Still in HS, I'll bet.

[Hi Horse]

Originally Posted by Rggr

It's because they don't want to bring down the Clintons for lying to Bush when he came into office and the rest of the Democrats that lied.

Oh now it is Clinton's fault....Step away from the Crack Pipe...you are halucinating..the only thing Clinton did was lie about sex under oath. Perhaps you need to read Woodward's book about Bush at War (the last one) or Richard Clarke's book and broaden your horizions.

I live 10 miles east of The Ballpark in Arlington where the Rangers play. W was President of the Texas Rangers. I know people that worked with him. They have no respect for him. One clerical employee said he had no work ethic and was as lazy as anyony she ever knew. Bush was told that OBL was the USA's biggest problem and he choose to busy himself with cold war issues until 911 hit, when he was not on the golf course.

[odanny]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

"While this reasons for starting this bastard of a war have been thoroughly debunked..."

Just out of curiosity, where did you read or see this debunking? Personally, I read most of the debunk on the pages o the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, and McClatchy, Not that I want to defend the pre-war in the tank coverage, but in on those same pages and broadcast I read or heard the objections of people like Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, Richard Clarke and others.

Same New York Times that Judith Miller wrote for?

Got ya.

[geos]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

The "Bush lied" crowd hasn't got a leg to stand on, and everyone knows it.


Read the above. Even a press with an extreme left bias knows what "overwhelming evidence" means. When their credibility is already in the tank, they aren't going to get into the business of perpetuating a lie (that Bush lied). That would be the final nail in the coffin.

Ya gotta love these F#x News diehards. THEY have the gall to question other's credibility???? WHEEEEEE They are truly beyond delusional. Me and about 5 others saw thru these war criminals/corporate wh@res the day they stole the first election. Now about 78% see these evil doers for what they are. The remaining 22% Neanderthals (with apologies to Neanderthals) will hang on to the edge of the cliff by their fingernails to the death because they're just emotionally incapable of admitting defeat. The world is evolving and leaving the right wing kooks in the dust.