Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: The Criminal Liberal Media Finally Comes Clean

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,219
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Criminal Liberal Media Finally Comes Clean

    At least one outlet has.

    [url]http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/03/12/are-iraqi-insurgents-emboldened-by-antiwar-reporting.html[/url]

    [QUOTE]Are Iraqi Insurgents Emboldened by Antiwar Reporting?
    Economists say their study, with caveats, finds some linkages
    By Alex Kingsbury
    Posted March 12, 2008


    Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq? The short answer, according to a pair of Harvard economists, is yes.

    In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the authors are quick to point out numerous caveats to their findings, based on data from mid-2003 through late 2007.

    Yet, their results show that insurgent groups are not devoid of reason and unresponsive to outside pressures and stimuli. "It shows that the various insurgent groups do respond to incentives and shows that a successful counter insurgency strategy should take that reality into account," says one of the paper's coauthors, Jonathan Monten, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

    The paper "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq" concludes the following:
    In the short term, there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets.
    In periods immediately after a spike in "antiresolve" statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.
    Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.

    But before partisans go wild on both sides of the aisle, here are just three of the important caveats to this study:
    The city of Baghdad, for a variety of reasons, was excluded from the report. The authors contend that looking at the outside provinces, where 65 percent of insurgent attacks take place, is a better way to understand the effect they have discovered. Other population centers like Mosul, Basra, Kirkuk, and Najaf were included in the study.
    The study does not take into account overall cost and benefit of public debate. Past research has shown that public debate has a positive effect on military strategy, for example, and, in the case of Iraq, might be a factor in forcing the Iraqi government to more quickly accept responsibility for internal security.
    It was not possible, from the data available, to determine whether insurgent groups increased the overall number of attacks against American and Iraqi targets in the wake of public dissent and debate or simply changed the timing of those attacks. This means that insurgents may not be increasing the number of attacks after all but simply changing the days on which they attack in response to media reports.[/QUOTE]

    As CBTNY and other conservatives have been saying on here for years, insurgents are emboldened by lefty anti war reporting and protesting...

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    So, Dean, what's your point?

    Are you arguing that no reporting about setbacks in war should be allowed?

    That war protesting should be banned?

    That Americans should not be given any information at all --beyond government propoganda-- about war, and just trust that billions upon billions of ther tax dollars are being spent wisely and humanely?

    Either you arguing for one of the above points, or you have no point at all.

    Which is it?

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    This was already discussed in detail a week or two ago. I'm glad to see that conservatives are ready to cancel the first amendment because Al Quaida might use it against us.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    Of course anti-war journalism emboldens Iraqi insurgents, but our military presence there is the ultimate and most significant cause for their actions.

    Do you really think the average Iraqi insurgent cares more about what MSNBC is reporting about the war than seeing an American humvee full of soldiers drive past his window dozens of times a day?

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;2450585]

    Do you really think the average Iraqi insurgent cares more about what MSNBC is reporting about the war than seeing an American humvee full of soldiers drive past his window dozens of times a day?[/QUOTE]

    I think that they know they have the left on their side so it emboldens them to fight on.
    All they get from the criminal left media outlets are one sided images of Americans protesting the war, closing military recruiting offices(San FranSissy and Bezerkely), calling Bush Hitler, calling US soldiers criminals etc.etc.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2450553]there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets[/QUOTE]

    So in other words...you believe we should void American free speech to give in to terrorist demands? You're a patriot...


    [QUOTE]Past research has shown that public debate has a positive effect on military strategy, for example, and, in the case of Iraq, might be a factor in forcing the Iraqi government to more quickly accept responsibility for internal security[/QUOTE]

    Oh, God yes. There is one thing we DEFINITLY don't want to do and that's force the Iraqi sh*theads to take control of there own bombed-out moonscape of a country.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2450608]I think that they know they have the left on their side so it emboldens them to fight on.
    All they get from the criminal left media outlets are one sided images of Americans protesting the war, closing military recruiting offices(San FranSissy and Bezerkely), calling Bush Hitler, calling US soldiers criminals etc.etc.[/QUOTE]

    Frankly, anti-war reporting in the US is far down the list of causes influencing the insurgents. Of course it has an effect, but logic would dictate that a physical presence and occupation by the US on top of the thousands of years of conflict and differences between the various religious sects in Iraq completely dwarf any significance the US media can impose.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2450618]So in other words...you believe we should void American free speech to give in to terrorist demands? You're a patriot...
    [/QUOTE]

    Please show me where I said that.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2450625]Please show me where I said that.[/QUOTE]

    It was in your beloved article.

    [QUOTE]In the short term, there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets.[/QUOTE]

    So...in other words, because terrorists attack the US more frequently when we exercise our rights of free speech we should exhort people to not express how they feel about the war so that the terrorists attack us less frequently.

    Sounds like caving in to terrorist demands to me...

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2450608]I think that they know they have the left on their side so it emboldens them to fight on.
    All they get from the criminal left media outlets are one sided images of Americans protesting the war, closing military recruiting offices(San FranSissy and Bezerkely), calling Bush Hitler, calling US soldiers criminals etc.etc.[/QUOTE]

    So what would you do about it?

    Put up or shut-up time, Dean.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2450634]So what would you do about it?

    Put up or shut-up time, Dean.[/QUOTE]

    It's not what would I do. it's what should the left do.

    A fair unbiased balanced media would be a good start.

    As for the liberals who call American troops killers, say we lost the war, shut down military recruiting stations, etc. there's nothing I can do. It's a free country. That's all on their conscience. Not mine.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,423
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2450643]It's not what would I do. it's what should the left do.

    A fair unbiased balanced media would be a good start.

    As for the liberals who call American troops killers, say we lost the war, shut down military recruiting stations, etc. there's nothing I can do. It's a free country. That's all on their conscience. Not mine.[/QUOTE]

    Is your conscience equally troubled by the lies that brought us into this war?

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2450643]It's not what would I do. it's what should the left do.

    A fair unbiased balanced media would be a good start.

    As for the liberals who call American troops killers, say we lost the war, shut down military recruiting stations, etc. there's nothing I can do. It's a free country. That's all on their conscience. Not mine.[/QUOTE]


    The mainstream media shut down recruiting stations? Where?

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2450650]The mainstream media shut down recruiting stations? Where?[/QUOTE]

    Please invest some of your time in a reading comprehension class.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2450648]Is your conscience equally troubled by the lies that brought us into this war?[/QUOTE]

    The lies that go back to the Clinton Administration? The lies told by most every intelligence agency in the west?

    No......

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2450675]The lies that go back to the Clinton Administration? The lies told by most every intelligence agency in the west?

    No......[/QUOTE]

    he's refering to the particular lies of the Bush administration...the one's they've never proven were actual lies...

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2450673]Please invest some of your time in a reading comprehension class.[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]All they get from the criminal left media outlets are one sided images of Americans protesting the war, closing military recruiting offices(San FranSissy and Bezerkely), calling Bush Hitler, calling US soldiers criminals etc.etc.[/QUOTE]

    My fault. I was having trouble following the conflations of your multiple delusions. I see you are mad at the "criminal liberal media" for reporting on these various things.

    Clearly the reports are why the war has gone bad. Nothing to do with the complete lack of planning, incompetent management or false premises it was started on.

    And by false premise, I do not mean the idea that Saddam may have had or been close to getting WMDs, which was a bipartisan belief, I mean the idea that there was an operational relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda -- a fiction peddled exclusively by Bush/Cheney et al and their various surrogates.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2450695]Clearly the reports are why the war has gone bad...[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. The anti-war protesters lost the war for us. It has nothing to do with Mr. "lean and mean, 6 days...6 weeks...maybe 6 months, oil revenues will pay for the war, open arms, liberators, flowers and chocolate cakewalker".

    Tree-hugger college kids. The new menace of the 21st century...

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,423
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2450688]he's refering to the particular lies of the Bush administration...[B]the one's they've never proven were actual lies..[/B].[/QUOTE]

    This is why you have no credibility at this site. To be quite honest, it is boring to constantly own you in post after post after post...:zzz::zzz::zzz:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Criticism[/url]

    Two arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq the capability to produce and/or the possession of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda [B][SIZE="5"]have been found to be incorrect according to all official reports. [/SIZE][/B]

    A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports.[11] President Bush has, since the invasion of Iraq, explicitly stated that that country was not involved in 9-11, which has also been concluded by subsequent reports,[12] and any alleged contacts with al-Qaeda were in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control. Also, the day before she voted on the resolution, Senator Clinton said during a speech on the Senate floor that there was no dispute that Hussein was not involved in the September 11th attacks.[13] Neverless, BBC News, The Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Institute for Public Accuracy, and Media Matters for America contend that members of the administration repeatedly over the years made suggestive statements with the implied message there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks. [B]Two recent independent studies show that Bush and his administration used 935 statements to justify the war that later turned out to be false[/B]. [14] [15]

    The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,[16] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee was frustrated according to the New York Times.[17] The Robb-Silberman Commission stated that the President's Daily Briefs from the intelligence community tended to repeat information in a misleading way. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President.[18] However, the vast majority of Senators did not read the NIE and relied on briefings by the administration. Among those who have stated they did not read the NIE and voted positively for the Iraq Resolution are Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, and former Senator John Edwards.[19]

    The assertion such weapons posed a threat towards the U.S. was not supported by the available evidence at the time, according to subsequent reports.[20] The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers that had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.[21] Weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories, despite statements to the contrary by the Bush administration. Continuing these inspections was made impossible by the U.S. led invasion of Iraq which forced the U.N. inspectors out while ignoring their requests for more time.[22]

    Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[23][24] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[25] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.[26]

    [B][I]Now that you have been spanked, run along and post more smear stories about Obama. I like the one where you uncovered "evidence" that he ate his sister's cookies on Christmas in 1978. Maybe hannity can work that into his show today for 3 hours.[/I][/B]:zzz::zzz:
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-26-2008 at 12:31 PM.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    34,669
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2450739].....:zzz::zzz::zzz:
    ......

    :zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

    You are really starting to give Tx a run for his money with the snooze smilies.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us