Thread: There's a lot of ruins - in Meso-potamia

The forgotten war.

Meh, there is no political traction that can be had by parading around dead people or talking about attacks so nobody cares anymore.

Didn't we also have two of the deadliest months in Afghanistan recently? That didn't get much traction in the news either. It was in the headlines for like, 2 min, then back to the pig flu.

Things sure aren't what they used to be.

Reinstate the draft, then people will pay attention.

Originally Posted by Triage

Reinstate the draft, then people will pay attention.

Nope, just put a republican president back in the White House and you'll see a day by day body count paraded on the pages of newspapers and television screens of America.

No one picked oup on the musical reference?

too busy walking my little dog, Quiche.

Originally Posted by Gorgoroth

No one picked oup on the musical reference?

i'll meet you by the third pyramid

Originally Posted by OSECS

Nope, just put a republican president back in the White House and you'll see a day by day body count paraded on the pages of newspapers and television screens of America.

open your eyes! your preconceived notions have blinded you to the world. Stop watching Fox.

^^Your preconceived notions have blinded you to the world. Stop watching CNN.

I love how anything Obama does is so 'thoughtful' and 'composed' while anything Bush did was 'cowboy' and 'irrational'. Even though they are doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by carpathian

I love how anything Obama does is so 'thoughtful' and 'composed' while anything Bush did was 'cowboy' and 'irrational'. Even though they are doing the same thing.

Does it hurt?

Actually cowboy and irrational is waaay cooler. Didn't you get the memo?

Worst b52's album ever.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Meh, there is no political traction that can be had by parading around dead people or talking about attacks so nobody cares anymore.

Didn't we also have two of the deadliest months in Afghanistan recently? That didn't get much traction in the news either. It was in the headlines for like, 2 min, then back to the pig flu.

Things sure aren't what they used to be.

Not sure where you get your news from, but I heard this repeatedly on two separate news programs this morning and neither were FOX.

Originally Posted by Grange

Not sure where you get your news from, but I heard this repeatedly on two separate news programs this morning and neither were FOX.

My post was a little tongue in cheek, but since you want a serious reply...

Did you hear about it repeatedly in June when June became the deadliest month in eight years for our troops in Afghanistan? What about in August when the August death toll tied June's record? Now that October's death toll has broken June's record it's starting to be talked about. If this had happened under Bush's watch you would have been seeing hockey stick shaped graphs all over the place two months ago and everyone and their dog being interviewed and encouraged to opine about whether the administration was on the right track or not.

And while we're on the subject, why did I have to go to Al Jazeera to find out that, for the first time, a top US official resigned in protest from his post in Afghanistan, said our troops were dieing for a 30 year old civil war, he had 'doubts and reservations' about the current and future strategy, had 'lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan and it was going to take decades and billions of dollars to achieve success there? Again, under Bush's watch this would have been front page news, but not now.

Reuters hasn't covered it at all, the only place it can be found on CNN is in the opinion section, msnbc buried it deep in their world news section(and I do mean deep), and ABC stuck it down in politics.

It's not that these things aren't being covered, but the tone and nature of the coverage seems to have changed drastically from what it was a couple of years ago.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

My post was a little tongue in cheek, but since you want a serious reply...

Did you hear about it repeatedly in June when June became the deadliest month in eight years for our troops in Afghanistan? What about in August when the August death toll tied June's record? Now that October's death toll has broken June's record it's starting to be talked about. If this had happened under Bush's watch you would have been seeing hockey stick shaped graphs all over the place two months ago and everyone and their dog being interviewed and encouraged to opine about whether the administration was on the right track or not.

And while we're on the subject, why did I have to go to Al Jazeera to find out that, for the first time, a top US official resigned in protest from his post in Afghanistan, said our troops were dieing for a 30 year old civil war, he had 'doubts and reservations' about the current and future strategy, had 'lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan and it was going to take decades and billions of dollars to achieve success there? Again, under Bush's watch this would have been front page news, but not now.

Reuters hasn't covered it at all, the only place it can be found on CNN is in the opinion section, msnbc buried it deep in their world news section(and I do mean deep), and ABC stuck it down in politics.

It's not that these things aren't being covered, but the tone and nature of the coverage seems to have changed drastically from what it was a couple of years ago.

Well it was a front page story on Yahoo so I'm not sure I'd call that buried.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

My post was a little tongue in cheek, but since you want a serious reply...

Did you hear about it repeatedly in June when June became the deadliest month in eight years for our troops in Afghanistan? What about in August when the August death toll tied June's record? Now that October's death toll has broken June's record it's starting to be talked about. If this had happened under Bush's watch you would have been seeing hockey stick shaped graphs all over the place two months ago and everyone and their dog being interviewed and encouraged to opine about whether the administration was on the right track or not.

And while we're on the subject, why did I have to go to Al Jazeera to find out that, for the first time, a top US official resigned in protest from his post in Afghanistan, said our troops were dieing for a 30 year old civil war, he had 'doubts and reservations' about the current and future strategy, had 'lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan and it was going to take decades and billions of dollars to achieve success there? Again, under Bush's watch this would have been front page news, but not now.

Reuters hasn't covered it at all, the only place it can be found on CNN is in the opinion section, msnbc buried it deep in their world news section(and I do mean deep), and ABC stuck it down in politics.

It's not that these things aren't being covered, but the tone and nature of the coverage seems to have changed drastically from what it was a couple of years ago.

Back in June the only thing Americans cared about was the economy. In August it was and still is healthcare. Last June and July was before Lehman Brothers collapse and the financial crisis wasn't in the forefront of everyones minds so that left room for Iraq. Afghanistan was being ignored for the most part.

Not sure why you had to go to Al Jazera to find out about the resignation because I read about it on Yahoo yesterday when I came into work.

If the Bush Administration had been trying to redo the Healthcare System I doubt much else would make front page news.

Right now Fox News has a story is about the controversy surrounding Curb Your Enthusiam peeing on a Jesus picture with the Pakistan blast story next to it. MSNBC has a story about the blast in Pakistan followed by the UN deaths in Kabul. I don't see MSNBC covering anything up unless the Curb Your Enthusiam Story is that important.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

...And while we're on the subject, why did I have to go to Al Jazeera to find out that, for the first time, a top US official resigned in protest from his post in Afghanistan...

Dude, it was ALL OVER the news blogs I read.

And if you haven't figured it out by now... It's usually 6 to 12 hours after it's all "bloggy" before it hits the big on-line news portals (unless it's actually broken by the likes of NYTimes or WaPost to begin with), I've always figured that unlike the blogs, they are actually fact checking before "going live" with it? Then like 12 to 24 hours after first emergence it will make it to the broadcast news shows.

No way. www.google.com/news (AP Source) was on that before the blogs.

Originally Posted by Grange

I don't see MSNBC covering anything up unless.

Where did I say anything about a cover up?

WTF is everyone talking about? Is this a new Republican talking point that I missed?

The problem with the corporate media during GWB is that they didn't pay attention to how many were killed in Iraq--and the WH of course would not allow them to show the most compelling images. Now these same people are supposedly upset that we're not taking enough account of the war dead?
How does the 'deadliest month in Afghanistan' (where we should have been anyway, instead of the Iraq adventure) compare to casualties in Iraq? That's what everyone should be outraged about. But I guess when a contrived war serves the political needs of Cheney/Rove, and pads the right pockets (again, Cheney--thanks, Halliburton) we don't need critical coverage.
This is all ass-backwards even by Republican standards (even if it were true (and it is not) that the media is not covering U.S. casualties). Hypocrisy example #3493.

Lets do more posting on this board about cable news and the non-reporting they do.

cablenewsmedia asshattery

Originally Posted by Tippster

No way. www.google.com/news (AP Source) was on that before the blogs.

No that I would ever doubt you Tipp... but I'd be curious to see real evidence of that?

I've not found a great way to do a time search, as the Google version will often show the auto news feed info for pages that were SUPPOSEDLY cached months earlier... then when you check the source you see it was from today or yesterday.

As I understand this story... the State Department first released the info on Hoh resigning (which he did way back on Sept 10, 2009) on this past Monday October 26, 2009. I see no true evidence (something like date/time stamp in text on page) that anyone was reporting it before then... The Huffington Post went live with it at "First Posted: 10-26-09 10:42 PM" and the BIG mainstream news break was the Washington Post front page piece from Tuesday 10-27-2009 (online version here)...

When I searched at that Reuters link under "hoh", "resign", "resigned" and even "afghanistan" I can't even find it to check its time stamp... You must have a better way to search that stuff and see when they had it up online???

(Edit: see you took out the Reuters credit in that post now... I'll go check and see if I can find anything on the Google/AP claim.)

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Where did I say anything about a cover up?

You didn't.

OK... after checking like a dozen plus sites regards when the AP had a story out on this, I get a consistent time of Yesterday 10-27-2009 at 4:47 PM Eastern, when reported at West Coast sites it reports 10-27-2009 at 1:47 PM. I suppose there could have been an earlier AP article on it, but I can't find one.

Also, in the current version at Huffington Post... they do have a quote from the Post in last sentence, but since in addition to that 10/26/2009 first posted date, they list a "Updated: 10-28-09 01:20 AM" so not sure when it was added??? Meaning I don't know if they could have been tipped (or saw early online version of Washington Post story) and just not credited them in any official way???

Either way... if you read enough different Blog/News Blogs/News "compendiums" you'll see they ARE snap on these types of stories.