There is a often-missed aspect to the conduct of the modern media. As James Fallows pointed out, many journalists are now celebrities, accepting fat speaking fees, and hanging in the same social circle of the people they cover. Sidwell Friends (Chelsey’s school)  is full of their kids, and most of them fancy themselves as tribal sages. Many end up with University chairs.
  This makes them part of people in power, but if they want to remain so, with access, they had best toe the line.
  What does it tell you when you learn Helen Thomas wasn’t called on for a question for three years, while Jeff Gannon/Guckert (a fake journalist and a male hooker) was repeatedly front and center.

after all that we see we still hear some idiots talking about the usa making progress in iras!!!
what a non-sense…

every day,us soldiers are chased by iraqi’s RBG’s and explosives even in the green zone,the most secure place in Iraq

yeah, it’s really a biiiiig progress!!!

I don’t see the media as cheerleaders. They are active participants in the war machine. Sometimes muted, sometimes strident, but ever the lap-dogs to the policy makers (Repub or Demo) feeding the machine for more champaign dollar$.
Add my agrrement to #5466

I could’t agree more with comment #5466 by Don in East Rutherford, NJ.  Bush et al left our guard down so that we would be attacked, and they could assume the mantle of Defenders of the Homeland.  With all the warnings re: terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings, Bush could have averted 9/11 simply by having the FAA order all airplanes to lock cockpit doors (like they used to be)

There is one sure cure for our pervasive militarism and that’s a resounding military defeat, such as what Argentina suffered not so many years ago in the Faukland Islands War..  As a result of that defeat,  popular support for the fascist military junta then ruling Argentina completely collapsed, allowing democracy to be reestablished in that nation..    Likewise,  our neo-fascist government will fall if our armed forces are defeated in Iraq.  Thankfully, said military defeat, won’t have to be of the mano a mano type (no way could our troops be defeated in actual combat) so there won’t be any additonal casualties.  Instead,  what will do it for us (end the occupation, that is)  is for there to be a spontaneous uprising of all Iraqis (such as what occurred forty years ago in Algeria) with literally the entire populace out in the street,  clamoring for their freedom and independence..  This will shatter any residual illusions here in America that the Iraqi people want us there,  there’ll be an outcry for ending the war and popular support for militarism itself will collapse.    And,  like Argentinans twenty years ago,  once that happens,  we the people here in the good old U.S.A. will know what to do.

There is one sure cure for our pervasive militarism and that’s a resounding military defeat, such as Argentina suffered not so many years ago in the Faukland Islands War..  As a result of that defeat,  popular support for the fascist military junta then ruling Argentina completely collapsed, allowing democracy to be reestablished in that nation..    Likewise,  our own neo-fascist government will fall if our armed forces are defeated in Iraq as more and more Americans will demand that the war end and that the troops be brought home.  Thankfully, said military defeat, won’t have to be of the mano a mano type (no way could our troops be defeated in actual combat) so there won’t be any additonal casualties.  Instead,  what will do it for us (end the war, that is)  is for there to be a spontaneous uprising of all Iraqis (such as that which occurred forty years ago in Algeria), with literally the entire populace out in the street, demanding, “Troops out now.”.    That’ll destroy any residual illusions here in America that the Iraqi people want us there;  there’ll be an outcry for ending the war and popular support for militarism itself will collapse.    And,  like Argentinans twenty years ago,  once that happens,  we the people here in the good old U.S.A. will know what to do.

There is one sure cure for our pervasive militarism and that’s a resounding military defeat, such as Argentina suffered not so many years ago in the Faukland Islands War..  As a result of that defeat,  popular support for the fascist military junta then ruling Argentina completely collapsed, allowing democracy to be reestablished.    Likewise,  our neo-fascist government will fall if our armed forces are defeated in Iraq, as more and more Americans will demand that the troops be brought home.  Thankfully, said military defeat, won’t have to be of the mano a mano type (no way could our troops be defeated in actual combat) so there won’t be any additonal casualties.  Instead,  what will do it for us (end the occupation, that is)  is for there to be a spontaneous uprising of all Iraqis, such as that which occurred forty years ago in Algeria, with literally the entire populace out in the street, demanding, “Troops out now.”.  This is going to destroy any residual illusions here in America that the Iraqi people want us there. Consequently there’ll be an outcry here for ending the war and, at the same time,  popular support for militarism will completely collapse.    And,  like Argentinans did twenty years ago,  once this happens,  we the people here in the good old U.S.A. will go on to restore democracy.  .

I read the article and the information it put together should become common knowledge. Not only are the news media not directly challenging the continuing US war effort, they’re making up their own stuff.  Yesterday a commentator made the following observation.  If Bush’s poll numbers hadn’t been so high before, they wouldn’t be so low now.  What does that mean?  Does it mean that the high numbers make the low numbers just seem low because they used to be high so the low numbers aren’t really low at all?  The gospel according to an idiot.

Just as Franklin D. has regressed to W so to has Edward R Murrow to Chris Matthews. The American people are beggining to note the difference though.

I heard war-booster and NY Times columnist David Brooks interviewed on NPR mislead about why the war in Iraq is a failure.  He said that Bush used too few troops to control the Iraqi population in the war’s aftermath.  He acknowledges as accurate the estimates by Gen. Shinseki and other since-fired generals of 300,000 to 400,000 troops would be needed to occupy a population the size of Iraq’s, and says the mistake was to use 160,000 under Rumsfeld’s theory of a transformed, leaner and faster military.

Brooks implies that Rumsfeld could have used 300,000 troops but made a mistaken policy choice, when, in fact, the United States military did not have 300,000 troops to send to Iraq - not with standard rotations for rest and training, and not without a draft.  The fact that Brooks will not admit is that the administration rejected Gen. Shinseki’s advice because it meant that we could not invade Iraq, and Bush was determined to invade so he could become a war president, earning him “political capital” with which he could ram through his legislative agenda.  Moreover, he was determined to implement the policies contained in the Project for a New American Century’s (PNAC) Strategic Defense Review which had as its first point the invasion and seizure of Middle East oil fields. 

The PNAC document noted that in order for the US to have political support to invade a Middle East oil-rich country, we would have to suffer “a new Pearl Harbor.”  If one reviews the multitude of warnings that the Bush Administration received that al-Qaeda planned to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings prior to September 11, 2001, it is impossible to conclude other than that Bush deliberately failed to heed those warningas because he WANTED al-Qaeda to achieve a terrorist attack on the United States so as to have the needed justification for his Iraq invasion.  Well, there is one other possible conclusion:  that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld colluded with bin Laden in the attacks.