If liberal media sources like CNN were around on D-Day, would they have called the operationa failure?

Question

A lot of boys died that day.

Answer 1

IF DAN RATHER HAD BEEN ALIVE ON JUNE 6, 1941......

"Today thousands of US soldiers INVADED France to engage German forces, killing thousands of marine mammals and over 60 French civilians, even though it was Japan who was directly responsible for the Pearl Harbor attacks."

Answer 2

First of all. Get your facts straight. CNN is by no means a "liberal media source" as your right wing comrades like to brainwash you into thinking. Ted Turner has ALWASY been a Republican. And, the AOL group have always been right wing politicos. Make no mistake. Time Warner has never been liberal. Time is the most right wing publication in the history of American publishing empires. Until Rupert Murdoch came along and started buying America, and now, of course, Murdochs News Corp is the Head of Right Wing Media.
So lay that CNN equal right wing to rest. It just ain't so son.

As for a lot of "boys" dying on D-Day. In fact, a lot of MEN died. Including over 3 of my relatives. My family sent a total of 9 men to war in WWII. And, believe it or not. My family have always been independent of political persuasions, but they all voted for Roosevelt for a very good reason. And, they are all voting democrat in 2008 for an even better reason. To restore democracy to the shores of the United States where it belongs.

Answer 3

Here's the problem with that:

1. The war was a real battle of good v. evil, unlike the war in Iraq.
2. Everyone who's talking about Pearl Harbor has forgotten that Germany did declare war on us right after we declared war on japan
3.You know, FDR and Harry Truman were liberal Democrats ok?
4. Operation Overlord was a real, visible success.

Answer 4

Ok - let's explain the difference for those who are a little too slow
1. We didn't start WW2
2. We didn't need to lie to everyone about why we wanted to fight in WW2
3. We didn't declare WW2 over in 1942 and then keep making excuses for why we were completely unable to make any headway since then.
4. On D Day we wer fighting to protect democracy and international justice - not initially fighting to protect oil and since then our President's worthless political hide.
5. D Day was a success - it came as a cost - but we moved closer to winning the war - not further away.
6. The country was united by what we were trying to achieve on D Day - not more divided than ever before thanks to a stunningly incompetent president.
When you actually bother to learn some history you will find that making dumbassed statements like the one above just make you look silly.

Answer 5

My guess is that faux news would have been screaming about the loss of life and would have called for the impeachment of FDR as a war criminal long before D-Day. These are the same neocons that have been claiming that FDR was, in fact, responsible for WW II and that we dropped the bombs on Japan, even though they were supposedly ready to surrender!!!

Answer 6

No, only do to the scale of the war. If The War On Terror was on the same scale as WW2 they would be saying America needs more time, buy more bonds, America will win. Look at what went down when our millitary went into Samolia. Small scale, fast amount of deaths, we were gone.

Answer 7

Indeed they did.

However, they were fighting a winnable war.
With the resources that this country is willing
to give, this one isn't.

Even the military said (at the opening of the war)
that we would need 300000 soldiers. Are you second
guessing them?

Unless we are willing to tripple the manpower
we have there, it will continue to be a perpetual
killing cooridor.

Time to get while the getting is good. Indeed,
although I suspect there will be massive
bloodshed when we leave, it will then stableize
and then we can start trying to address the issue
of terrorism in non-military ways.

If we don't leave and don't ramp up forces, it won't
stableize ... the killing will continue ... and then when
we finally do leave, you'll get that same massive
bloodshed.

"The liberal media bias" is conservative
poppycock. They simply don't like what they're
hearing and therefore blame the messenger.

Think about it: Recently, what is the only nationwide
network that has been accused BY ITS OWN
EMPLOYEES of killing articles because of
corporate sponsorship? Fox news...

I'm not saying that there isn't alot of corporate
influence within the networks - but if anything
that makes them MORE conservatives, not
less.

And lastly ... at least some of the reporters
who covered World War II are still around
(though not actively reporting from the front).
What do you suppose THEY say? Indeed
Cronkite's primary complaint about the current
press is that they are so much influenced by
corporate sponsorship.

And that people tend to line up behind
sound-bite ideas (like "death taxes", the
"Green President", etc). The press is failing
to make people really evaluate what is
happening.

If it had been doing its job, we wouldn't be
in Iraq in the first place.

Answer 8

Actually you have it backwards.

Republicans were the one who opposed US involvement in WWII. The Republican Senate Leader, Robert Taft, even opposed a draft prior to Pearl Harbor.

So you tell me who the appeaseniks were then.

Answer 9

The other day I stepped outside and it was raining. Obviously, the weather was biased. I tried to open my car door, but it was locked. Obviously, the lock was biased. I found my keys, started the car, and noticed the fuel gauge was 3/4 empty. Obviously, my gas tank is biased. I went to the gas station and tried to pay in monopoly money, but the attendant wouldn't take it, since he's obviously so biased. I was so angry, I hit myself in the head with a hammer, and judging from the agonizing pain, my skull must be biased.

Answer 10

Omah beach, the airborne,...all Hilter would have to do is tune in CNN and have the battle plan than send the panzers to push us back into the ocean.

Answer 11

The idea that the media is at all liberal is a false assumption. The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.