Main Stream Medias PROPAGANDA

Just like when Walter Chronkite announced that the war was unwinnable (after we WON the Tet Offensive), today's traitors in the MSM couldn't care less about facts or truth.

Walter Chronkite betrayed our troops in Vietnam, now today his minions do the same. 

They should be treated as the enemy to freedom that they are.

(Citizen)ParaTed2kDecember 15, 2006 14:14:17

Walter Cronkite betrayed our troops in Vietnam, now today his minions do the same. They should be treated as the enemy to freedom that they are.

Cronkite was and still is a traitor, even if he is rotting in his grave.

I am all for Justice for the war protesters. Take their citizenship away and drop them in Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and let them preach their anti American bull crap there I am sure they will be treated like kings and queens and they spew forth the same exact venom the enemies of America are, BASHING AMERICA, TELLING THE ENTIRE WORLD we are a nation of cowards and the real cause for all the ills of the worlds.

There is no army on this planet that can defeat us. But then they don't have to. They just use their willing dupes in the press to do the job for them.

(Citizen)Dr. Guy December 15, 2006 15:06:02

There is no army on this planet that can defeat us. But then they don't have to. They just use their willing dupes in the press to do the job for them.

At this time in history the greatest threat to AMERICA IS NOT THE TERRORISTS, it is the lying main stream media.

We lost Vietnam, and we lost many major battles if you look at what was spent to "win" them. In order to defeat a meat grinder, military commanders decided the best thing to do was choke it with meat. Almost 60,000 Americans died, not because of propaganda, but because their lives didn't mean anything to their commanders.

In terms of propaganda, the MSM didn't need to make it up in Vietnam. Hundreds of American dead per week were sufficient.

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, December 15, 2006 We lost Vietnam, and we lost many major battles if you look at what was spent to "win" them. In order to defeat a meat grinder, military commanders decided the best thing to do was choke it with meat. Almost 60,000 Americans died, not because of propaganda, but because their lives didn't mean anything to their commanders. In terms of propaganda, the MSM didn't need to make it up in Vietnam. Hundreds of American dead per week were sufficient.

From 1965 through and including 1975 11 years 53,000 dead. Against hundreds of thousands dead for the enemy.

you are wrong baker. We did not lose "many" battles, we won the vast majority of conflicts. You must be reading the MSM book of Vietnam, lies and more lies and you of all people should not be so gullible .

we officially got into Vietnam in 1961 by the way now we have 15 years 52 weeks =-780 weeks.

780 divided into 53,000=67 dead per week. so again your wrong  67 is a very long way from" HUNDREDS"

That's an odd assertion for someone who was in Vietnam to make, unless you're just trying to pad the numbers and hope I don't notice. "Major" battles the US military undertook in Vietnam started in 1965, and all US military operations ended in January of 1973, and the troop levels for '73 were basically nil:

1959: 760

1960: 900

1961: 3205

1962: 11300

1963: 16300

1964: 23300

1965: 184300

1966: 385300

1967: 485600

1968: 536100

1969: 475200

1970 334600

1971: 156800

1972: 24200

1973: 50

(link), (link)

So if you take the years where the US had real "major" battles, 1965-1972, and multiply by 52, you get 416. Divide that into the REAL number of US killed and MIA, 58,193, you get 139 per week on AVERAGE. These things don't happen on average, so there were many, many weeks when people saw hundreds of dead coming home from Vietnam.

That's not propaganda, that's raw data condemning the miscreants who sacrificed American lives needlessly. For instance 1545 men died in January of 1968. 2259 died in February.

You can't whitewash Vietnam. You can praise the bravery of the valiant men who were ordered and did as they were told and lost their lives. Don't for a second praise the awful political mess that treated them like grist for the mill, because you just honor people who didn't give a damn about the men who were fighting there.

Vietnam was a tragedy. Period. It was tragic for the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese that lost their lives, and it was tragic for the US that still hasn't recovered from it. If you want to call that a series of major victories, then there's really no possibility of reasoning out of you what wasn't reasoned in.

I mean, good lord, moderateman. In just the years 1967, 1968, and 1969, 39,361 US soldiers lost their lives. That makes 252 per WEEK on average for those years. You call that "propaganda"?

Could you please, if you would, back up your assertion that we didn't lose Vietnam? Could you please pose what you consider to be the hallmarks of success of the venture that took hundreds of thousands of lives on our side of the war?

Going to have to disagree with you a bit MM... There is a difference between a war protestor and someone who has taken the enemy's side in a war.

"It is just as constitutional to protest any war as to fight in it" ~ ParaTed2k's (Not So) Famous Sayings.

A war protestor is against the war... period. They don't want either side to fight at all. What we have in the MSM is actively (and knowingly) helping the enemy to win. True, the enemy will use the actions and words of the protestor to their advantage, but that is just tactics. Mikey Mooron, ColGene and others know what they want, and what they want is for the US to lose.

That is not anti war, that is pro-enemy.

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, December 15, 2006

One of the many blessings of math is anyone can use the same figures to prove different points.

We did not lose in vietnam {meaning the troops} The mass of anti-war propaganda lost the war.

A vietnamese general said, the american public and anti-war protestors along with the lies being spread by American news won the war for them.

A war protestor is against the war... period. They don't want either side to fight at all. What we have in the MSM is actively (and knowingly) helping the enemy to win. True, the enemy will use the actions and words of the protestor to their advantage, but that is just tactics. Mikey Mooron, ColGene and others know what they want, and what they want is for the US to lose. That is not anti war, that is pro-enemy.

I think that is the one huge difference between the protestors involved in vietnam and the ones involved today.

The vietnam protestors wanted the war to end.. The Iraq war protestors want America to lose.

"It is just as constitutional to protest any war as to fight in it" ~ ParaTed2k's (Not So) Famous Sayings

and just as patriotic.   Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, December 15, 2006 Going to have to disagree with you a bit MM... There is a difference between a war protestor and someone who has taken the enemy's side in a war.

Agreed.

What a load of huey. Walter Cronkite a traitor?! Most do not share your stilted version of reality, unModerateman. Given the political and military situation the war was unwinnable. The North Vietnamese did not care how many they lost. They had no military infrustructure that we could bomb. They used supplies from the Chinese and Russians, used routes obscured by the thick jungles for their supply lines, and depended on the fact that we could not attack them without bringing the other superpowers into play and risk nuclear war. We could not go on the offensive because there were no front lines. Our pilots were being shot down daily and put into hellholes all around Hanoi. Our troops waited in firebases to be attacked, or go out in patrols where we would be slowly whittled away. Just how of our youth would you have had die for that worthless cause. Democracy in Vietnam? They had a coup to overthrow the Democratically elected government because of their totalitarian excesses. Their only real difference from the North was they were not Marxist. Ho Chi Mihn came to us first to ask for independence from French imperialism.

Flash into current day. We have a situation where we do not have the troops to quell the situation, and disagreement from top brass that more troops would even help. We have been staying the course and everyone but George Bush and Dick Cheney say that we are not winning there. Is it just the ultra leftist media? No, its people like former Chief of Staff and Secretary of State Baker, and the new Secretary of Defense Gates. Can you really look me in the eyes and say that things are better now than in 2004 when Dubyah was re-elected under the belief that even he couldn't fug it up any more than he had.

Do you really believe that everyone in the media is left leaning? If media has a bias, its an entertainment bias. They will report what puts people in front of the TV to watch. They went after John Kerry and his record in Vietnam and after just as hard as they went after the Michael Jackson trial and Terry Schiavo. It didn't really even matter which side of the debate that they came in on.

(Citizen)whoman69December 16, 2006 11:54:15

What a load of Huey. Walter Cronkite a traitor?! Most do not share your stilted version of reality, unModerateman

I know that freedom of thought upsets you liberals, but last time I checked it is still America the same America I fought and bled for and I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to your twisted secular progressive view.

I see you have not changed, from defending terrorists "rights" and still looking for ways to trash this great country.
Nice to see the enemies of America so out there unafraid to express their hatred because of men and women , American men and women willing to die for YOUR freedom.

The MSM did their best to ignore the Kerry debacle, fox news did not ignore it. so the MSM had to chime in.

Only someone like you could see a murderous regime like the north Vietnamese as freedom fighters. the same regime that MURDERED millions after we left.

I am sure when you pray {if you pray} it is to your heroes, like Mao, Adolph, Stalin, pol pot, ho chi, and the great men of Al qaeda, hamas, and Hezbollah.
Sleep well know BETTER MEN THAN YOU are fighting and dieing so you can rest safely.

They had no military infrustructure that we could bomb

This is either an "outright" lie or you have been sadly misinformed. You should start by checking on Hanoi. Read this. What do you think we were bombing? Thin air?

Link

drmilerDecember 16, 2006 14:22:58

They had no military infrustructure that we could bomb This is either an "outright" lie or you have been sadly misinformed. You should start by checking on Hanoi. Read this. What do you think we were bombing? Thin air?

whoman never worries about facts docm, as long as he can blindly parrot terrorists thoughts and secular progressive propaganda, he is content.

This is either an "outright" lie or you have been sadly misinformed. You should start by checking on Hanoi. Read this. What do you think we were bombing? Thin air?

No, Innocent civilians. Just ask Woman69.

The MSM has long ago lost any objectivity they may have ever had (which is doubtful). They are nothing more than a tool of those who seek to control the people through misinformation and thought control.

The nation's economy is strong and yet they keep harping on how bad it is. We won the war in Iraq when we defeated the Iraqi army and removed it's leader. What is happening now is helping the Iraqis establish a new stable government, and yet they keep harping on the fact that we are somehow losing a war that we have already won. WTF?

It's true the clean up is going slower than originally planned, but progress is being made despite the negative press propaganda to the contrary. The Iraqis are taking more and more responsibility for their country every day yet the MSM keeps harping on how badly things are going. Reality has little to do with their political propaganda machine.

Almost 60,000 Americans died, not because of propaganda, but because their lives didn't mean anything to their commanders.

Very good point. You keyed in on the obscure fact that people die in war. This should end immediately. Vietnam was fought with the President giving the orders on how and where to fight. In Iraq the generals were given what they asked for and it worked. You cry over 58k dead in Vietnam while saying they lost. In fact three times the North Vietnamese government was at the point of surrender. Each time the Times would print something to inflame our people at home and give the Vietnamese hope. The Vietnamese freely admit that John Kerry, the New York Times, and war protesters helped their cause.
In WWI in one day of fighting they lost 58k people. In Vietnam in 11 years of fighting we lost 58k people. Had the liberals not fought so hard to get rid of Mr. Nixon the war would have ended three years sooner, but it was better to let those people die in order to make their case that Mr. Nixon was a war monger. They left out the fact that the war was started by Mr. Kennedy and escalated by Mr. Johnson or the fact that Mr. Nixon was elected because he promised an end to the war. Saving American servicemen’s lives is not the goal of the liberal it is the acquisition of power and the spread of their ideology. In a war where we lost no major or important battles and brought the enemy to their knees three separate times we were forced to quit. Just like now where we lose no battles at all we are being forced to quit. Keep up the good work spreading the propaganda for the enemy and you too will one day be allowed to die for the winning side you so happily cheer for.

"I am sure when you pray {if you pray} it is to your heroes, like Mao, Adolph, Stalin, pol pot, ho chi, and the great men of Al qaeda, hamas, and Hezbollah."

You talk about freedom and then try and characterize what Whoman says above as terrorist propaganda? You've reached a new low, moderateman.

"Keep up the good work spreading the propaganda for the enemy and you too will one day be allowed to die for the winning side you so happily cheer for."

Don't you accuse me of cheering for the enemy. I have a solid record of supporting the effort in Iraq and mourning the fact that the LEADERS OF OUR MILITARY pull back every time the political wind changes. THE MILITARY AND CIVILIAN leaders in these wars bowed to pressure, the damned press can't make policy. If politicians sacrifice lives because of public perception blame THEM.

The pig headed farce that is ultra-conservatism on JU sickens me. Again, thank Brad I can't exile people for being idiots. IF you had said that to Brad you can bet you'd have been exiled.

Anyone who says I am a cheerleader for terrorists won't be welcome on my blog, though, bank on it.

By Moderateman: We never lost a major battle in Vietnam, yet most Americans thought we lost the war>

Correct. However you can win all the battles and still lose the war. War is "Diplomacy By Other Means". Each war MUST have a purpose, otherwise it is just pure barbarian aggression. If at the end, the war achieved its stated purpose, then it is won otherwise it is lost.
Any arguement beyond that is really useless.

By the way, changing the war's stated purpose is a clear indication that the original one is unachievable i.e. the war is unwinnable.

Don't you accuse me of cheering for the enemy. I have a solid record of supporting the effort in Iraq and mourning the fact that the LEADERS OF OUR MILITARY pull back every time the political wind changes.

It appears I hurt your feelings for that I am sorry, it was not my intention to be personal, more to make a point. Disagreement with our government within the country is a needed, good and healthy thing for various reasons. What is dangerous and unhealthy is taking that same message outside our borders. That is the cheerleading that I don’t agree with.

No, that's not what you said. You said:

"Keep up the good work spreading the propaganda for the enemy and you too will one day be allowed to die for the winning side you so happily cheer for."

I don't and haven't cheered for the enemy. I don't play cheerleader for corrupt politicians that needlessly toss away the lives of brave soldiers, either. Those lives are thrown away when they sacrifice them for a goal only to pull back in fear of political damage.

For that you and the rest here blame the press. If the press told you to jump off a cliff, would you? If the president now, or in 1972, wasn't a big enough man to do what he believed was right, and instead hesitated and balked every time the polls turned against him, that isn't the press's fault, is it?

Sure, the press influences what people think, but once leaders are in office they are sworn to do the best job they can, not bow to every whim of the polled masses. If a President is to much of a panty waist to do that, then perhaps faulting anyone else is just giving him a pass.

I don't cheer for the enemy. I like to see enemies dead. When we have the ability to kill them and don't because we fear political stain, I don't fault the press. I fault the men that had the power to accomplish the goal and then didn't because of personal political goals.

Those lives are thrown away when they sacrifice them for a goal only to pull back in fear of political damage.

This is what has been going on since the first person died in Iraq. For the political goal of taking the White House and Congress the Democrats have been screaming that it was all Mr. Bush's fault, he can't run the war properly and that people are dying over there for no reason. What person in their right mind is going to support an effort their leaders are saying is wrong, and ill fought? The people in the military get it and are doing their jobs.

For that you and the rest here blame the press. If the press told you to jump off a cliff, would you? If the president now, or in 1972, wasn't a big enough man to do what he believed was right, and instead hesitated and balked every time the polls turned against him, that isn't the press's fault, is it?

I disagree with you here. It is the fault of the press. The Press is the fourth branch of government; they have a mandate to keep Americans informed of what is going on. This mandate is in the constitution which is why the government can’t shut down a news organization without jumping through a lot of hoops. We are supposed to decide what is important and what is not, and based on the information we have been given from the press we put pressure on our elected officials to do what we hired them to do. That is how it is supposed to work.

The majority of the press believes it is their job to slant a story in such a way that the reader comes to their conclusion. When FOX came on the scene with the tag line of fair and balanced the rest of the media was apoplectic because FOX had the temerity to suggest the others were not fair or balanced. They did something that had not been done in decades. They presented the news without slant. My goodness the audacity to trust the viewer to come up with the right answer on their own and without the media’s help was sacrilege.

The Democrats have been using the media forever and they could always count on the media to help them win for the most part. Not a conspiracy by any stretch but they had sympathizers that would help when they could. When you have a war going on and the big news items are how Mr. Bush lied to get us into a war, or that he somehow failed to serve his full term of military service decades ago, or if they cover the war they want to tell everyone how many service people are being killed for no reason shows the misdirection being applied. Two thirds of Iraq is quiet with no serious attacks, people walk the streets at night with no problems so why are they focusing on the one third that is in turmoil? It is all designed to put pressure on our leaders in the Congress and the Executive branches. Why is it that the press screams that we need more troops but neglects to mention that Congress can add to the number of troops any time they pass a bill into law? The President does not have to ask for more troops they can just add it any time. But that would make it too easy and there is no way the Democrats will do anything to make life easy for this president.

The polls are what are driving public opinion not the other way around because now the news media is commissioning polls with slanted questions in order to drive news stories. They commission a poll and surprise, they have a news story. This poll then becomes the story that proves their point as opposed to writing it up as an opinion piece. It is called inventing the news. Here is a poll for you. Do you want your children murdered in the streets; murdered at home; or not murdered at all? I will assume you said not at all. New poll suggest that America is against sending their children to Iraq because of massive deaths. Only if you get to see the poll questions do you find out what people were really answering to. The poll questions are available if you know where to look for them or pay for them but how many people actually read the poll questions when you can read the headline?

No, the press is called that in its own smugness, but the press couldn't stop Bush from finishing the job, say, in Fallujah. They have no veto, no vote, and the President doesn't have to check with them. He had the opportunity for victory, and he allowed political PR concerns to cloud his judgment.

That isn't the fault of the press. You have a lot of well thought-out points there, but in the end it all relies on the idea that the press needs to be involved in the President's thought processes. Doesn't the mere fact of the bias you are talking about invalidate them as a source of information????

Listen, if you guys are smart enough to see how biased and unrepresentative the press is... are you saying the President is that stupid not to? If as you say the press is cheerleading for the enemy, then wouldn't the president be actually obeying the ENEMY when he obeys the press?

So, instead of disproving the press by handing them overwhelming victories, we fulfill their prophesies by cowering away every time an ill political wind blows. Make sense to you? If you were building a house, and your hateful inlaws came by every day to tell you that you were going to fail, would you walk off with it half finished in the belief it would make them happy?

Well, that's what we've done, over and over. Blame the press if you like, but I am going to blame the people who have the final say on the walking off.

Enemy propaganda?. Doubt you'd consider Colin Powell the enemy or an enemy cheerleader, yet that's a pretty frank statement, wouldn't you say?