Fox gives less attention to Iraq war study shows
 

NEW YORK - On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings.

Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.

That wasn't unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/...n_tv_fox_s_war

Who wants to hear about a war when I can hear about how Paris Hilton got released from prison because she MIGHT have a nervous breakdown.......then instead of treatment, she hosts a Paris' Pool Party and gets interviewed by Barbara Walters.

hey Daemon!

if i am correct, CNN and MSNBC are more liberal stations, while FOX is considered conservative. lets face it, the conservatives voted for Bush, who in turn started the war, and majorly screwed everything up. so if you voted him into office, why fill your evening being bombarded with the site of countless soldiers you helped to kill? :)

i didnt vote for him. i stood an hour and a half in a line to vote OPPOSITE him. so i make it my business to keep myself educated as to how many soldiers i tried to bring home, and pray for my family and friends who are still there...GO CNN AND MSNBC!! Hurray for the TRUTH!

Wow, what an appalling, and idiotic post on so many levels. So the conservatives (Bush) started the war? It wasn't those guys that orchestrated the largest civilian attack in US history? Yeah, that makes sense, dumbass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't an overwhelming majority of Congress approve of Bush sending troops to Afghanistan?.....and didn't the Senate vote around 77-23 and the House around 296-133 to attack Iraq in 2002??

Furthermore, I voted for Bush....and I am absolutely shocked that you would even think to claim the me, and people that did the same, HELPED kill our soldiers? How fucking dare you say that you worthless, liberal, tree hugging piece of shit.

I could not agree with you more on so may levels!

These men and women are giving their lives to protect what could happen to us as Americans ergo 9/11! Who were these people who died and the many innocent people from bombs in Iraq.

Yes, I had to vote for Bush, why? All one had to do was look at Kerry!:eek:

If we pull out the troops now, waht does one think will happen not only in Iraq, but the whole middle east and then the rest of teh world!

I'm pretty moderate (ban abortion, ban guns, don't care either way if gay people get married), but I love this statement.

Mac,

First, is there any chance you will ever clean up your language, stop your personal attacks and stop violating the Terms of Service?

You have read them, right? You had to agree to become a member.

You're a bright guy, you should be able to make a valid point without vulgarity.

Point taken on the vulgarity, but I'd argue that maybe OneTimeSBX's comment was worse. Vulgarity is frowned upon and all, but saying that if you voted for Bush, you were responsible for the deaths of troops, is pretty awful stuff.

I believe the exact quote was "so if you voted him into office, why fill your evening being bombarded with the site of countless soldiers you helped to kill?" While it might not be exactly in the TOS, statements such as that should probably be restrained as well.

I don't understand why people want to ban guns...Just take a look at D.C. and tell me it would honestly reduce crime. As for Fox News, the only channel I get at work so I watch it daily, IMO is just a very small step up from E! News.

Exalt.

That may be, but I'm not commenting on the argument in this case, just the TOS violations.

Appreciate the comment, though.

You're welcome, always glad to be of service.

I will request, though, that if the moderators see fit to erase Macallan's statement, that they do the same to OneTimeSBX's as well.

You know what? No buddy, I won't. I find that post ridiculously offensive and extremely uncalled for. Sweet God, can we go one day without someone exhibiting 8th level nerd tendencies by bitching about TOS "violations"? What's next, are you going to start calling for e-tickets and fines? This is an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD......chill out.

You're a bright guy Delt, perhaps you should remove your head from that pile of sand it's buried in and realize why I commented the way I did in the first place. I don't especially appreciate being legitimately told that I helped cause the death of United States soldiers because I voted Republican. Frankly, I feel perfectly entitled to respond to that kind of nonsense in whatever manner I damn well choose.

If the moderators want to delete my post.......then so be it..........but they better delete that horse shit of comment as well.

Sorry macallan while the rest of your post has some valid points, you're dead wrong here given the context of the post. Did the Conservatives/Republicans (Bush) start the 'War on Terror'. No. Did they start the War in Iraq (which the thread is about). Yes. The former was in response to an attack (9/11) while the later was pre-emptive.

Fine then I'll say it too... because of your political support for an illegal war, and the continued political support for the administration that completely dropped the ball in the war planning, peace, and reconstruction, you share in some small part the responsibility for these soldier's deaths - it's the nature of living in a democracy/republic that the people give the government the poltical power, and if that government does good or bad the public shares in the prasie or blame.

I think you'll agree that each 'step' away from the actual decision in the democratic process reduces 'responsibility' by a large degree, correct?

Because you missed a few steps (notably, it seems much more correct that the administration "dropping the ball" leads to the soldiers being put into a particular situation, then that situation may or may not result in injury).

Representative democracy, furthermore, should really assuage any of these concerns. "Responsibility" carries a connotation that is likely incorrect here, whereas its denotation might carry some small weight in your argument as posed.

If that's the way you feel, with those large leaps in logic, I have no idea what to say to you.

Support for the war makes absolutely no difference. By your reasoning, everyone who voted for the administration is responsible. Also, all those who originally voted for the war, and those too timid to take affirmative action (most democrats) are responsible. Quite obviously, public support for the war does not change the actions of the administration or the nature of the conflict. Simply deciding that you don't support the war does not remove you from "responsibility"

Yeah, true, the thread wasn't about Afghanistan........but I'm not sure what I was wrong about concerning the Iraq War Resolution. The main opposition from the Democrats came in the House (296-133 total), but the Senate vote was fairly one-sided (77-23 total, Dems were 29-21 in favor). So I think it is not exactly accurate to say that Bush and the Conservatives were solely responsible for starting the Iraq War. Bush can not just go start wars.


Sorry, but that logic is pretty much crap......plain and simple. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you. How about the people that initially voted for the Bush Administration but don't support the war? Are they free and clear of "responsibility" now because they are against it? How about people that don't support the war now but were one out of the nearly 80% of Americans that initially fully supported our actions in Iraq? Are they out of the dog house too?

As for the war being illegal.....I think that is highly debatable just from what I have read. I am not an expert on International Law , but if you consider all three bases for the use of force I'm not sure that it is illegal at all. I'm fairly sure that the UN charter guarantees the right of each members to self defense, including preemptive self defense....and I think the actions taken after Resolution 1441 are highly debatable as well pertaining to legality.

True - reduces but not removes.

If the you are aware of a government minister or body failing and then you re-elect them you are really only approving of the failure or mistakes... or at least that's what I'm getting at.

No I think responsibility carries the correct connotation here, in that you and you actions are responsible in some small part for the actions and policies of those you elect; whether it be a individual responsibility or collective one - a strictly neutral term. Where connotation comes into play is in the interpretation of the term, either implying fault or praise depending on the rest of the statement or arguement...

Exactly.

International law does provide for a "pre-emptive defense" if a clear and present danger is readily apparent and unavoidable - which is where the problems arise as to the legality of the Iraq War, since different treaties and conventions differ as to what a clear and present danger is; however most of the laws post-WWII don't support the case that Iraq was a imminent danger to the US for two reasons: inability of the Iraqi military to attack the US conventional (Land, Sea, Air), and the lack of a military build-up directed towards the US (ironically it was the US that pushed for these 'conventions' during and following the Nuremburg Trials). Things also are complicated even further by Domestic Law as well for the various nations involved either directly or indirectly - for example the case of Irish citizens physically attacking/damaging a US airforce plane refueling had a lawful excuse/reason to sabotage the plane since they were acting to prevent the plane's deployment/use in an 'illegal war'.

Beyond the "fault or praise" portion (which, in most cases, veers violently more toward the 'fault' side I would posit), the denotation of "responsibility" carries some degree of burden of active involvement - see the common usage of "taking responsibility" for example.

Besides this, you are explicitly playing "Monday morning quarterback" - this is a problem, because it does not hold every side 'responsible' in the same fashion (it tends to punish those more actively involved to a much greater extent) and it's somewhat fallacious from a logical basis.

And even beyond THAT, the original statement was short-sighted and needlessly inflammatory, essentially breaking down to "people who voted for Bush have blood on their hands." If you carry your argument to its logical conclusion, anyone who agreed with the war (which includes a majority of congress and about half of its Democrats), along with anyone who did not actively and completely work against the war effort, also has blood on their hands (after all, they 'let' this happen just as explicitly as I did if I voted for Bush, no? Enablers, all of us). It's asinine, really.

I agree with you onetimeSBX.

Yup, thanks, I AM A LIBERAL TREE HUGGING PIECE OF S***. I'm also proud of it. I won't go into my ideals, because honestly, arguing is a waste of my time, i believe what I want to believe and you believe what you want to. I still think you are wrong.

ok...apparently i have offended a few people on here, and for that i am sorry you feel the way you do. i am looking at this from probably a more emotional POV than others are. i have family and friends in this war. i was blessed to have some of them return safely, and then go BACK and come home injured. and then this same goverment is not taking care of our injured troops the way it should be and that is a FACT.

IMO, if you voted to KEEP GW in the white house the 2nd time around, and you knew what he was capable of, you are part of the problem. If you are not doing or have not done anything within your reach to bring these men and women back home, you are partly (not 100%) responsible for whatever happens. i will cut slack for anyone who voted for GW the first time, because nobody knew what was going to happen. but the 2nd time around?? i dont think so.

i get mentally exhausted looking at obit after obit of these children being sent home in wooden boxes. as a mother it breaks my heart to see someone bury their child. that is pretty much my angle with things.

eta: i am not worthless. my vote counted as much as yours did in that election...

I'm sorry.


Yeah, you're right.......arguing would be a waste of your time. In all honesty, if you "agree" with everything she said then you are just as big an idiot. Not only were her thoughts completely incorrect and ill-informed....... they were completely uncalled for and nothing short of ludicrous.

Please though......tell me how I'm "wrong". I'd love to hear it. I have no problems with you not agreeing with my opinions....you are perfectly entitled to that. But if you think I'm wrong about the statistics and absolute facts that I posted........then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe do some research and enlighten yourself. It's not hard to find, very quickly, that a majority of Congress, including Democrats, voted in favor of a Declaration of War and that close to 80% of the American population agreed with them at the time.

Many of us have friends and family who are serving/have served in Iraq. Most of my views on the war are influenced by the soldiers I know.

Many (if not most) soldiers and many (if not most) military families support our mission in Iraq. Just because you think its pointless doesn't mean they do and that we should.

People disagree about the war, thats fine. However when you refer to Bush in that manner (that we "knew what he was capable of"), you lose legitimacy. He's someone who acted on the information he had at the time, fighting a war like we've never fought before. Prone to mistake, sure, but implying he's evil or something is just ridiculous.

On the one hand, while I'm thankful for these soldiers fighting for their country, I'm not really sorry they get injured or killed. Our armed services are all-volunteer. A person in the military knows or should reasonably know that by signing on that dotted line, they're putting themselves in harm's way.

As far as not taking care of our injured troops "the way it should be," I'm not sure what you mean. Military medicine is better today than it has ever been. Does it perhaps have a long way to go? Yep. I do think that for the most part, they do a decent job.

How about the Demos who voted to make Kerry the Democrat nominee? If y'all had actually put forward a candidate who was worth a crap, maybe things would be different. I voted for GW -- twice.. and if Kerry were the alternative today, even though I'm not thrilled with Bush, I'd still vote for Bush.

Whatever... you join the military, death is a possibility. It's not all summer camps and learning new job skills.

Did you vote for Kerry in the primary? Lieberman, Dean or Edwards would have probably fared far better against Bush than Kerry did.

what can i say? im a natural lover and not a fighter. i support the TROOPS, not the war. i send letters, care packages, post cards, anything to boost their morale, because lets face it, some of them arent coming home. and anything that kills thousands of young people (dui, drugs, violence in schools, etc.) needs to be addressed.

i may also be around a different group of soldiers as well, of the 5 i know who are home now, all of them felt the war was unneccesary. i guess none of us who are here comfortable in the US will know as well as they do...

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I personally find it difficult to believe that you could be supportive of the troops but against them being successful in their mission. I

Just because I've been to Europe a few times doesn't make me an expert on US-EU relations.

^^^if them being "successful" means they will make it home safe, then so be it. i will support whatever gets my family and friends home in one working piece...dont get support mixed up with AGREE WITH though...

So you disagree with what they're doing, yet you support them?

Again, that seems to be a contradictory statement.

As someone who has never been a fan or supporter of Bush (and who never voted for him), I actually agree with you. I may not agree with many of the policies he has pursued or the way he has gone about pursuing them, but that kind of knee-jerk reaction to Bush is, in my opinion, just as lacking in any real thought as the knee-jerk reactions to Bill Clinton were. It gets an immediate discounting of credibility from me.

Again, I find myself in agreement.

I have two very close family members that served in the Special Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would have absolutely loved for you to have come up to me or my aunts and uncles and told all of us that we effectively killed our cousins/sons because we voted for Bush. I can't think of a more heinous thing to say to someone. Frankly, you should be embarassed....especially considering the fact that you are a mother with children.

As for government aid for injured troops.....it appears to me that the Pentagon is slowly but surely improving upon their ways to increase aid to the injured, so I'll leave that alone. Those men deserve the best, no doubt.

Well apparently the majority of America is "part of the problem" then because that is exactly who voted him into office "the 2nd time around" (first time a majority popular vote has occurred since 1988). Frankly, I had no idea in 2003/2004 what was going to happen in Iraq. I'm pretty certain that I hadn't learned how to predict the future just yet. I am certain though that, at the time, I was very impressed by the fact that we managed to bring down the Iraqi Government, its military, and secure its oil infrastructure with minimal damage in a reasonably short amount of time. Evidently quite a few people felt the same way because he was riding close to a 70% approval rating going into the 2004 Elections, if I remember correctly.

Let me ask you this......what have you done that is so incredibly special that you are free from any blame or "responsibility" for whatever happens in Iraq? Please don't say, "well I didn't vote for Bush"...because that is an extraordinary cop-out. Seriously though, what have you done? Are you standing on the Capitol steps day in and day out demanding that the government bring our troops home? Are you traveling to Iraq and personally taking people back home with you? Really, I'd like to know....because I sure as hell hope you have done something special enough that allows you to place blame and "responsibility" on others. As for me, I pray for our troops, for their safe return, and that the conflict will be resolved in a manner that will benefit all sides....hopefully sooner than later. If that isn't enough for you, I don't really give a damn.....but guess what......those guys aren't coming home until the powers that be feel that it is absolutely necessary.

In all honesty though, when it really comes down to it........maybe y'all should have put up a better opponent than John Kerry. If the same two men were up against each again this coming election.......I'd still vote for Bush. I think many, many people would willingly share the same sentiments.

pray tell, Macallen...whose fault is it then?

@kevin, i dont have to agree with what the troops are overseas doing, positive or negative, every single one deserves to come home safe. if they were overseas rebuilding after a natural disaster, i want them home safe. if they were overseas killing innocent people, i want them home safe. its not contradictory.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter, which is "who can I blame for this." For starters, you can blame Iraq for violating numerous UN resolutions. You can blame the UN for not taking affirmative action. You can blame various intelligence agencies around the globe which reached the same conclusions. You can blame the huge majority of American people who supported the war, and the majority of legislators who voted for it. You can blame the administration for listening to these sources, and not having the foresight to anticipate what has happened. You can can blame the other countries who were originally involved, and you can blame the military personnel who made the decision to join the armed forces.

All of this, however, accomplishes nothing.

durrrrrrrrrrrrr if you think somebody has done something 'wrong', why wouldn't you blame that person?

Laying blame at the feet of the 'enablers' (who in this case had no foresight nor real control over the situation) is just as shady as blaming people who did not actively prevent a situation.

I don't know who's fault it is......and frankly, I'm not sure anyone does. You could list a boat load of people who could be found at fault. Voters, Congressmen, the UN Security Council, the Iraqi government, the CIA, foreign intelligence agencies, other foreign governments, etc. etc. (basically everyone that Shinerbock mentioned).

What I do know is that presenting an argument/belief in which you claim that the Republican party and the voters who elected George W. Bush are solely responsible for the diminishing situation in Iraq and the death of thousands of American Soldiers is, not only baseless, but appears to be nothing more than an easy way out for uninformed Liberals looking to attack Conservatives.

Speaking of responsibility.....again, I ask you what you have done? Haha, can you not answer my question from the last post? You are so quick to tell me who is "part of the problem" and who is to blame.....but when I turn it around on you......you side step it like it was a land mine.

Well, usually when you support someone.....you support whatever it is that they are involved in.

Many supported the war. Many did not support the way it was carried out. Many also do not support the fact that we are providing charity and suffering for it.

I think that's the Christian thing to do - get slapped on one cheek and offer the other for a good slap. I'd seriously re-think that philosophy, but hey I leave that to you guys.

As for the actual topic of this thread, it's an irrelevant statement isn't it? Does CNN provide a lot of coverage on positive events (as limited as they may be) in Iraq? No. Does that indicate perhaps that they're against success in Iraq?

-Rudey

Would that you were right, because that would mean that almost all voting-age Americans actually voted. It's true that the majority of those who voted, voted for Bush. But unfortunately, only a bare majority of eligible Americans voted at all, putting those who voted for Bush at around 25%-30% of voting-age Americans.

I'll stand by my comment.