The media was just as much a tool as we were, that's why they resent it so much and that's why they're so anti Bush, anti Iraq war. The whole administration was tight and learned to sing the same tune. The institution fooled the press and they in turn led us here. (I'm not defending Bush, now, but you have to admit it was shrewd.)
Now the press is being foolish about the whole thing and has let anger get in the way of objectivity. Then again, if we didn't have a war, how would the media make its $$? If it bleeds it leads. The awful sells.
Democratic candidates have recently said that they wouldn't neccessarily pull the plug on Iraq as soon as they get into office- as stated in their respective campaigns to date. How will the media paint them?
I don't think they misrepresented 9-11 at all. They were as stunned as we are.
2007-09-30 13:48:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Rubber Cranium 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The media is 80% liberal. If you will do some research on the pre Iraqi war you will find the United Nations, Congress, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe BIden, Madeline Albright, John Edwards. Howard Dean, Jay Rockefeller insisted we go into Iraq..
This is their war not President Bushes war for goodness sake.
If President Clinton would have caught Bin Laden (he had 6 chances) 9-11 might not have happened.
We were attacked before 9-11 and he did nothing.
2007-09-30 21:50:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by mary 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The U.S. media are basically clueless. Even the Washington based "pundits" are merely preaching to the already converted in their columns and op-ed pieces. And it isn't a recent trend. I can recall the initial attack on the World Trade Center of 1993. No one in the media ever got around to mentioning the attack happened on the second anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi forces.
In 2002, they seemed to have great difficulty in separating the U.S. going to the U.N. with charges of WMDs still in Iraq with the reasons put forth by the Congress in its resolution to authorize military operations against Iraq. And they still can't see the difference.
None of the reasons for our operations in Iraq drew a connection between Hussein's regime and the attack on America of September 11, 2001. But, it did mention Hussein's support of terrorist groups. A man was just convicted in a German court in connection with his leadership of Ansar Al Islam, a known terrorist group. The U.S. air strikes took out their training camp in northeast Iraq early in the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Since we don't have one single well-known journalist who can even speak one word of Arabic, or know the first thing about such figures as Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi or Seyyid Qutb, I don't expect the veil of ignorance to lift any day soon.
2007-09-30 22:58:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
i highly doubt the media influenced us to go to Iraq. that was simply Bush's doing. the media just covered that.
2007-09-30 22:28:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Random Black Woman 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No ,it was in the works for awhile,Saddam was to defiant and didn't think anyone would dare take him out.If he did, he would have toned down the rhetoric.The same thing is gonna happen to the other Big Mouth in Iran.The media don't have any control over anything except the length of their short skirts and color of their reporters hair.
2007-09-30 20:43:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋