Why Are Iraq War Hawks All Over TV While the War's Critics Are Frozen Out? (McCain, Ron Paul)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite catastrophic misjudgments -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators, that the war would pay for itself with oil revenues -- the Iraq war boosters keep getting booked, while those politicians and journalists who were skeptical of the Bush administration's “slam dunk” case for war remain largely on the sidelines.
McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay, who was part of the Knight Ridder team that produced what is widely regarded as the best pre-war reporting, has only been invited to discuss Iraq's unraveling on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” a media criticism program. Landay, who just returned from a 10-day reporting trip in neighboring Syria, hasn’t heard from any cable news or Sunday public affairs shows.
I've kinda noticed it too. I mean, why in the hell are Cheney and Bill Kristol gallivanting around TV and giving their opinions on what to do in Iraq?
That said, i don't watch a lot of TV so i might be missing some of the shows featuring the war's critics, but this piece makes a good case that they're right.
Andrew Bacevich has an interesting theory featured in the link as to why the hawks keep getting invited.
Maybe because the people need to be reminded what a holes they were and still are!
There's probably more truth your statement than you think. The anti-war left have already said their piece. It doesn't make for good television to have a kumbayah on problems with going to war in Iraq. What does make good television is a news reporter thinking they can set up the pro-Iraq talking-heads for that treasured "gotcha moment" in hopes that it will propel them into the Twitterverse, YouTube, and anywhere else modern media goes to rest its head for self aggrandizement.
I've kinda noticed it too. I mean, why in the hell are Cheney and Bill Kristol gallivanting around TV and giving their opinions on what to do in Iraq?
That said, i don't watch a lot of TV so i might be missing some of the shows featuring the war's critics, but this piece makes a good case that they're right.
Andrew Bacevich has an interesting theory featured in the link as to why the hawks keep getting invited.
The national media dopes didn't see it coming because they all stink at uncovering news. If it isn't in somebody's talking points they don't know a da** thing. All I see are retired military officers who all have different opinions including my favorite, "Let it burn!"
Tell him not to run as a Republican and i'll at least take a harder look at him.
But for now, all i can see is that big R on his forehead.
That said, i actually like Dr. Paul and think he's principled.
So you've answered your own question. You like him but you have no intention of listening to him because of the letter after his name. Why would a television program bring someone on that so many say they aren't willing to watch?
Besides, I would think he would be exactly who you would support as an "opposing" politician. I don't support everything he does but I'll likely vote for Joe Manchin again because he pretty much does what he says. I'll support a principled politician I don't always agree with over a double talker who says the right things every time.
Dont tell me that you support lowering the deficit and then vote to raise it. I had a lot of respect for Dennis Kucenich until he went on television and noted that he thought Obamacare was a horrible bill but he was forced to vote for it anyway. I do understand that nobody is likely to ever be perfect in this regard so I still think he's O.K. I just hate that he gave up his principles for party.
A president Paul with a (R) after his name still wouldn't invade Syria because McCain, Graham and Cheney was demanding it. Obama with a (D) after his name wanted to. Luckily the principled part of the left stood up to him this time.
Typical liberal,no ability to look at policy just look at the party , so you're woulld like Paul if he was a democrat and held the same policy stance
Not necessarily. He doesn't fit in our party either. And i didn't say i like his policies...at least not all of them.
I said i like him because he's principled.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
