Media was Wrong About the War In Iraq and They Are Wrong About Obama

How true it is... a very good read.

The Media was Wrong About the War In Iraq and They Are Wrong About Obama – Used Car Salesmen Push Another Lemon

by Angie Pratt Page 1 of 2 page(s)






The media was wrong about the war in Iraq. They fell for Bush and the neoCONs' story hook, line and sinker. They enabled the Republicans to start a unilateral war of

choice by shoveling misinformation and burying the truth. Honest debate was brushed aside as irrelevant at best, unpatriotic at worse.

The media is doing it again.


Sometime in December, the media decided to get on the Obama bandwagon. That's about the time that Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann stopped their attacks on

George Bush and commenced firing on Clinton. At the same time the Obama sales job on the American people was kicked off. The marketing message was loud

and clear – Clinton bad – Obama good.

In pursuit of their agenda, the media has used all of its standard tools – distortion, contrasting photo's, pejorative words, etc.etc. etc. With each newscast and article

written they shaped the discussion on the Democratic primary. They moved it from a discussion of issues where Obama was and is a lightweight to something much

more fluffy, amorphous and totally unfettered to logic – change.

Perhaps the media's most important tactic in their promotion of the war in Iraq and the Obama candidacy was/is selective reporting.

Nowhere did this do more damage than in the media's attention to and promotion of the idea that Hillary Clinton had played the race card. Coming out of Iowa, the

media thought they had accomplished their desired results. They thought they had killed off Clinton and elevated Obama to the Democratic nomination. They started

reporting Obama's win in New Hampshire days before the primary.

Ooops. They were wrong. How could they be wrong? How could New Hampshire not vote like they were supposed to? Clinton must have cheated!

And so the Obama campaign and the news media played the race card. The only explanation could only be that Clinton had somehow, probably thorough subtle

racial innuendo, gotten whites to not vote for Obama. So subtle that they could not find any evidence of it.

In the absence of facts invent them. In the absence of proof, make claims that strike at the heart and not the head. Then repeat them over and over again – being sure

that denials are presented as suspect – wink, wink.

And perhaps most damning of all, there's Obama's dirty laundry. The non-airing of it, that is. Avoid the vetting process. See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

That's just what the media did in the run up to the war.

Ask yourself, what did the media know about Rev. Wright and when did they know it? Evidently they knew about it from the start and decided to not report it. Why?

Was it because it wasn't newsworthy? Was it because it was old news?

Nope. The media didn't report it because they knew that Obama's 20 year connection to Black Liberation Theology was damning. They knew that if people became

aware of it Obama wouldn't even come up to Jessie Jackson's or Al Sharpton's level. He'd be pegged as a black racist.

25 years ago Berry Obama decided that he'd rather be known as Barak. 20 years ago, Obama decided to join Rev. Wright's congregation. Did he do it to win over the

predominate demographic of southside Chicago hypocritically? Did he do it because he felt victimized himself? Did he do it because he agreed with the basic

Marxists tenants of Black Liberation Theology? Anyway you look at it, it shows bad judgment.

Do you think Obama could stand the kind of media attention that the Clintons have been subject to? Do you think Obama's dealing with Rezko can stand that kind of

investigation?

So … now that's it's out in the open how do you do damage control. Why you deny it and claim that whites just don't understand the black experience. Excuses,

excuses, excuses.

Making lemonade is one thing. Being sold a lemon advertised as the best thing since sliced bread is dishonest. Actually it's worse than that. The media is supposed

to report the news objectively not push their own agenda down our throats.

Obama has not been properly vetted. There are simply too many unknowns. There cannot be this level of uncertainty connected to next President of the United

States.



http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_angie_pr_080325_the_media_was_wrong_.htm

:rofl:

at least you know how to make stuff show up in bold type-face...

:puke:

Why did they make her hire Mark Penn and act belligerently to the Press? Those jerks.

...

:)

You'd think the hatmeongers would get his name right -- "Barry"/"Barack."

...someone going by "Matt" who one day wants to be called "Matthew".

It's his name, dude, get over it.

to FUND it further and made a public announcement he wouldn't, which he stated before being elected US senator...translates into Obama really IS for the war..see Obama gave Bush more money even knowing ALL there was to know...seems like a hypocrite liar to me.

radio ,that has given Obama complete freedom from scrutiny..all the while bombarding Hilary from every angle...Obama is just as guilty with his race baiting. I find what he's done and is trying to do to the Clinton(see he holds a deep grudge against Bill. Bill did NOT endorse Obama in his first and FAILED attempt to state senate run..Bill endorsed Obama's opponent...fact.)absolutely disgusting and a DANGER to our country and all we've achieved thus far (NOT even close to equality I'm aware..)relating to race and the AA community. You are an Obama supporter..YOU will never see what I and many Hillary supporter do. From where I look...it is sad. It is shameful and wrong what is happening here ...the MSM has failed us, this I'm certain.

help, to exploit a BS story. Do you actually believe that Hillary could lie for years, withhold her tax returns, be linked to an Abramoff lobbyist, resist releasing much-in-demand information about her ties to lobbyist, with little pressure from the media and she's not getting a pass?

Earlier this year Hillary, when asked about Bill's Kazakhstan ties, responded with Cheney did it too. Scrutiny? None.

Hillary is not a victim, she's a product of a failed system and a symbol of the status quo.

So, this false comparison is faulty from the beginning.

it's accurate!

If the Obama campaign had lost this race a badly as she has, it would have been over a long time ago.

The media is falsly hyping Clinton's viability in this contest. It should have ended when she lost Texas.

Get a grip!

:thumbsup:

The only people who see Black Liberation Theology as a liability are people who are threatened by black equality. The same people who are threatened by Barry deciding to shed his de-ethnicized name for one of ethnic identity.

Marxist tenants? First off, I don't usually hear democrats talking about Marxism in this manner. Secondly, tenants are people who pay rent to a landlord. TENETS, on the other hand are the pillars of an organization that you're probably referring to.

for us....

Thanks for the post -

They are the worse offenders.
I do find it strange how the media is pushing Obama, just how they stuck us with that loser dubya 8 years ago. McCain has not gotten coverage as favorable as Obama.

Media was sucked in by Bush's corporate influence. Strange phenomena are abound.