I'm sick and tired of all the Palin threads. Let's talk about something important.

RAMADI, Iraq: Two years ago, Anbar Province was the most lethal place for American forces in Iraq. A U.S. marine or soldier died in the province nearly every day, and the provincial capital, Ramadi, was a moonscape of rubble and ruins. Islamic extremists controlled large pieces of territory, with some so ferocious in their views that they did not even allow the baking of bread.

On Monday, U.S. commanders formally returned responsibility for keeping order in Anbar Province, once the heartland of the Sunni insurgency, to the Iraqi Army and police. The ceremony, including a parade on a freshly paved street, capped one of the most significant turnabouts in the country since the war began five and a half years ago.

Over the past two years, the number of insurgent attacks against Iraqis and Americans has dropped by more than 90 percent. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has been severely degraded, if not crushed altogether, in large part because many local Sunnis, including former insurgents, have taken up arms against it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/01/mideast/iraq.php

Does a stabilizing Iraq significantly help McCain?

Does a stabilizing Iraq significantly help McCain?

Significantly? Probably not. People want the troops to start coming back soon, and I think that while it's a good thing that the situation is improving, I don't think that affects whether or not the troops should come home for a lot of people.

Does a stabilizing Iraq significantly help McCain?

Only if it meant the war would be over and the troops return home.......and the warmongers in Washington, from both political parties, are not about to let that huge cash cow get away any time soon.

If they did, the wealthy corporatists who pay to have them elected would drop them like a hot rock.

The war seems less important to the left when it isn't an issue that hurts the President.

Peter, Paul and Mary might sing Where Have All the War Threads Gone?

Does a stabilizing Iraq significantly help McCain?
To add to what Vile said, an improving situation in Iraq could be seen as more of a reason to reduce our numbers in Iraq. Also, Iraq's not a big campaign issue anymore, so developments in the war wouldn't have a big effect on polling numbers.

The war seems less important to the left when it isn't an issue that hurts the President.

Peter, Paul and Mary might sing Where Have All the War Threads Gone?
I haven't seen the conservatives here starting any threads on Iraq either. The public as a whole has lost interest in Iraq, not just one side of the political spectrum.

To add to what Vile said, an improving situation in Iraq could be seen as more of a reason to reduce our numbers in Iraq. Also, Iraq's not a big campaign issue anymore, so developments in the war wouldn't have a big effect on polling numbers.

Well, wouldn't those troops just be redeployed to Afghanistan? It seems to me the armed forces have a lot on their plate and a stabilizing Iraq is just one step towards getting the troops home.

I could very well be wrong though. You'd certainly know better than I would.

The war seems less important to the left when it isn't an issue that hurts the President.


I think the partisanship of this election is affecting a lot of people...even some of the least partisan members here. :)

I haven't seen the conservatives here starting any threads on Iraq either. The public as a whole has lost interest in Iraq, not just one side of the political spectrum.

There isn't much to report on, you never hear about it anymore. Which means it is going good. No news is good news, which is very true when it comes to our media, who likes to only report on the negative.

There isn't much to report on, you never hear about it anymore. Which means it is going good. No news is good news, which is very true when it comes to our media, who likes to only report on the negative.

The negative stuff is what sells. Blame capitalism.

I haven't seen the conservatives here starting any threads on Iraq either. The public as a whole has lost interest in Iraq, not just one side of the political spectrum.
The public goes the way that media coverage goes.
The MSM has dropped this story like a hot potato as the surge kicked in and things began improving.

The MSM has dropped this story like a hot potato as the surge kicked in and things began improving.

:rolleyes:

Surge to Nowhere ---By Andrew J. Bacevich
Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802873_pf.html), and we still own it. ... The surge has done nothing to overturn former secretary of state Colin Powell's now-famous "Pottery Barn" rule: Iraq is irretrievably broken, and we own it. To say that any amount of "kicking ass" will make Iraq whole once again is pure fantasy. The U.S. dilemma remains unchanged: continue to pour lives and money into Iraq with no end in sight, or cut our losses and deal with the consequences of failure.

lol, nice one stinker.

Well, wouldn't those troops just be redeployed to Afghanistan? It seems to me the armed forces have a lot on their plate and a stabilizing Iraq is just one step towards getting the troops home.

A lot of the units pulled out of Iraq probably will be deployed to Afghanistan. However, the overall number of troops in Afghanistan probably won't reach the level we see in Iraq. That could also mean shorter and less frequent tours. Considering all that, such a move would be more palatable to many people the Iraq war is, especially since more people agree with the war in Afghanistan on principle.

The public goes the way that media coverage goes.
How do you know it's not the other way around in this case? Given the short attention span of the American public, I'm surprised Iraq didn't fall off the public's radar sooner.

The MSM has dropped this story like a hot potato as the surge kicked in and things began improving.The media could still report bad news from Iraq if it was their intention to do so. However, they just chose to drop it altogether. That was certainly irresponsible of them but was not an indicator of bias.

Jester, how can you sit there and say with a straight face the media is not biased? Do you get TV where you live?

Jester, how can you sit there and say with a straight face the media is not biased? Do you get TV where you live?
I didn't say it isn't biased. I will say though that:
1. The bias isn't nearly as severe as some make it out to be.
2. The drop in coverage on Iraq isn't a result of bias.

Does a stabilizing Iraq significantly help McCain?
I wouldn't think so, but maybe.

The drop in coverage on Iraq isn't a result of bias.
Yes and no.

The most important decision regards Iraq, is the safety of the Iraqi population, who after all, have suffered the most in the conflict there.

Its true, Americans are becoming bored with it [unless your loved ones are serving there], that in itself could be a dangerous thing, as radicals like to play to the American audience.

Tho the emphases seems to be shifting to Afghanistan.

I didn't say it isn't biased. I will say though that:
1. The bias isn't nearly as severe as some make it out to be.
2. The drop in coverage on Iraq isn't a result of bias.

Oh it is not? have you even tried to compare the difference in coverage the candidates get? Compare the amount of criticism Palin has gotten on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/NPR and yad yada since last Friday to the amount Obama has gotten in the last 16 months. How can you NOT see it? The only criticism Obama gets is form "fringe" media that instantly gets analyzed and downplayed and put away by the mainstream media. If you only watched the alphabet channels, you would think Obama was god like and Palin was the devil. I know you try to be objective yourself, but for the love of god, dont tell me you dont see a bias in the media.

If the US Networks are privately owned by wealthy individuals or corporations, why would they leave Obama alone at the expense of McCain ???????????????

We have heard that paul, it is not who owns the damn things it is who decides what is on them on a nightly basis. It seems in order to prove to most people there is no bias all someone has to do is mention a rich person owns the company and magically there is no bias. I mean, we all know all rich buisness owners are pro republican, so the news must be all pro republican too! never mind what is actually on the news and the people they put in front of the cameras are about as pro obama as you can get, short of standing in the crown waving a sign they are his campaign staff!

If the US Networks are privately owned by wealthy individuals or corporations, why would they leave Obama alone at the expense of McCain ???????????????
Because simple-minded people like hearing the messiah proffer his message of hope more than they like hearing an old man discuss politics. As they've opined in the past - it's simple capitalism.

But it stands to reason that a wealthy individual/corporation would swing more to a conservative leaning than what you guys describle as a liberal one.

He/they arent gonna let some news anchor fire out news of quantity of news that goes against their interests.

PS: Here we can view CNN International.

you would think. And that is what the dhramas and freethinkers of the world would have you believe. It is just not the case though.

But it stands to reason that a wealthy individual/corporation would swing more to a conservative leaning than what you guys describle as a liberal one.
It actually swings both ways. If liberal sentiment makes the network profitable, then what do you think the businessmen who run those stations and their related affiliates are gonna do? When the war isn't popular, guess what happens? IOW, it’s all about the bottom line.
He/they arent gonna let some news anchor fire out news of quantity of news that goes against their interests.
True. That's what editors do under the employ of majority shareholders (i.e. wealthy conservatives).

That being the case, then one scenario would balance out the other scenario.

What about all these super ego political anylists [mostly Irish American oddly enough] who deem to
speak for the nation, they go against the grain.

That being the case, then one scenario would balance out the other scenario.
In some cases, it does.
What about all these super ego political anylists [mostly Irish American oddly enough] who deem to
speak for the nation, they go against the grain.
Like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? :)

That being the case, then one scenario would balance out the other scenario.

What about all these super ego political anylists [mostly Irish American oddly enough] who deem to
speak for the nation, they go against the grain.

Sure it is balanced. The coverage of both parties is like a horse and rabbit stew. Just add one horse and one rabbit. I will let you decide which party is which ingedient.

In some cases, it does.

Like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? :)

Thats the dudes.

Sure it is balanced. The coverage of both parties is like a horse and rabbit stew. Just add one horse and one rabbit. I will let you decide which party is which ingedient.
Or more apt-Elephant and Donkey stew.

Re: horse and rabbit stew
LOL - I've heard that before, but I still love it. :)

Or more apt-Elephant and Donkey stew.
Nobody eats elephants. ;)

Does a stabilizing Iraq significantly help McCain?It's too late. Most Americans consider Iraq a mistake based on what has happened up to now and whether or not Iraq calms down at some future point isn't going to change that opinion. It's simply not worth it, especially given the possibility that we might still be nation-building over there for the next 10 years.

it stands to reason that a wealthy individual/corporation would swing more to a conservative leaning than what you guys describle as a liberal one.

you would think. And that is what the dhramas and freethinkers of the world would have you believe. It is just not the case though.

What?

Wealthy individuals and Corporate leaders leaning toward the conservative side of politics?!??!? How preposterous!

As the wise man just informed us -- ""It is just not the case.""

No way.

[/sarcasm]

It's too late. Most Americans consider Iraq a mistake based on what has happened up to now and whether or not Iraq calms down at some future point isn't going to change that opinion.

and you and your democrat buddies will make damn sure of that!