Quote:
Iraq right?

Yeah, that's the place.

Quote:
You mean the stations that said we were doomed because of a sand storm? The stations that said that thousands of our troops would be wiped out as they neared Baghdad by Iraq's army?

If you are looking for me to defend the electronic media on every parapet, you have come to the wrong place. Their thirst to produce something with zing and their market-driven need to find instant talking heads produced a whole lot of predictions, both dire and cocky.

Quote:
You mean the stations that said we didn't have enough troops to win a military victory (not post-war)?

Gosh, where did they get that nonsense from? Some of those left-wing, liberal generals in the Pentagon I bet. Beyond that, I would think it a bit embarassing to hang a debating point on "(not post war)" as if we *did* win the World Series in 2003, but somehow just couldn't manage a repeat in 2004. Oh, and as long as I'm on sports metaphors ...

Quote:
You mean the stations that said we'd lose tens of thousands of troupes from Saddam's chemical weapons?

Chemical weapons? Sheesh! Who put that crazy idea into their head?

Quote:
If one were offended that the reporters who were embedded with the troupes dared show any enthusiasm or excitement because of our Army's overwhelming military and combat victories, maybe that person should ask themselves why they long to see the military in a bad light.

So, criticism of the media's behavior means that someone longs to see the military in a bad light? Who exactly are you saying wants to hold the military in a bad light?

I think your definition of "our Army's overwhelming military and combat victories" is a little myopic. Have you given much thought to the role of Donald Rumsfeld in overruling *professional* military -- those people who some folks are accused of holding in a bad light -- and pressing his own pet "small force+airpower" conceit on people who actually had a clue? Yes, the US military projected overwhelming, unstoppable force along corridors through Iraq and destroyed any direct opposition, but was subsequently unable to secure the countryside or the thousands (millions?) of tons of munitions now being used against it. Overwhelming? Sure. Victory? Ummm.

Is it only anti-Bush liberals that take this view -- who just want to make Bush look bad? Where does this leave people like Anthony Zinni? It would seem that you don't have to be one of those people looking to hold the military in a bad light to have some very mixed feelings about our military prospects.

Quote:
Besides, two months of embdded reports showing camaraderie with the troops they are with does not tip the scale away from their Left leanings and anti-Bush bias over years.

Your citation of media woe-sayers aside, my point is that the media, in particular the electronic (read: TV) media in the US, gave the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle war machine a big pass. As war approached, they were much more concerned with graphics, embeds and branding than with any critical journalism that might inform the debate. Good grief, your much-maligned liberal New York Times, to its everlasting shame, couldn't manage to ask a few tough questions and about a year too farking late -- on page farking A10 -- says We made a Boo Boo.

Bad news, Brad: the only media who got the salient parts of the Iraq story/deception right were media outside of the US and some of those US left-leaning, commie pinkos who were derided in 2002-2003 as being conspiracy theorists and "unpatriotic". People like that "terrorist" from The New Yorker Seymour Hirsch.

I think I grabbed a leg, and I *think* it is an elephant. What part did you grab, and do you think it is an elephant?