PDA

View Full Version : Matt Drudge calls out the press


JustRalph
07-09-2013, 07:38 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/09/Drudge-Hits-Media-Over%20Obama-Afghanistan-Casualties

Media once again covering for Obama

PaceAdvantage
07-09-2013, 09:33 PM
I said the same thing just yesterday or the day before...Matt must be a lurker... :lol:

PaceAdvantage
07-09-2013, 09:41 PM
BTW, it's pretty disgusting how the media has treated the very same situation in two completely opposite manners.

I guess Obama sycophants will fall back on the "well, it was Bush's war that Obama inherited" garbage. Never mind a large number of left-leaners have clung to the "Afghanistan was the justified war of the two"...so they own this as much as Bush and even more after all these years.

Yet, the crickets are out when it comes to the reporting of causalities....

Robert Goren
07-09-2013, 09:48 PM
Not to worry. We have Matt Drudge to tell us what the main stream ignores.

PaceAdvantage
07-09-2013, 09:49 PM
Not to worry. We have Matt Drudge to tell us what the main stream ignores.We don't need Matt. It should be obvious to anyone who has paid any sort of attention the past 12 years or so...

I don't need Matt to point out the obvious. But certain people do...like you for instance...

LottaKash
07-09-2013, 10:28 PM
We don't need Matt. It should be obvious to anyone who has paid any sort of attention the past 12 years or so...

I don't need Matt to point out the obvious. But certain people do...like you for instance...

I couldn't have said that any better Boss...

mostpost
07-09-2013, 11:05 PM
I said the same thing just yesterday or the day before...Matt must be a lurker... :lol:
You and Matt have something in common. You're both full of it.
A google search of "US casualties on the rise in Afghanistan" found stories on just this topic in Huffington Post; LA Times; Wall Street Journal; USA Today and NBC News. And that is just from 2013. There were many others from 2011, 2010 and 2012.

A search of MSNBC's website found page after page of story on individual battles with casualty counts. And three stories on the topic at hand.

Of course none of the stories included the whiney , "Well, that's more then under Bush, why aren't you picking on Obama, like you did on Bush?"

The reason that is not in the mainstream media stories is that the mainstream media are not toadies for the Republican National Committee like Drudge and Breitbart and PA.

PaceAdvantage
07-09-2013, 11:08 PM
When is ABC's Nightline going to devote 40 minutes or however long it took, to read the names of the dead along with photos...that was so compelling last time...don't they want to remind America what is happening? Don't Americans deserve to know?

Tom
07-10-2013, 12:26 AM
Do mostie and Bobby even know how many have died in Afbamastan since he too office?

Remember, Obama said victory in Afbamastan was not a goal, that it would be insulting to muslims. Look it up in your Funk&Wagnells.

boxcar
07-10-2013, 01:19 AM
Remember, Obama said victory in Afbamastan was not a goal, that it would be insulting to muslims. Look it up in your Funk&Wagnells.

Since the casualty numbers for our side keep climbing, perhaps Obama's unstated and real goal is to build up the enemy's morale at our expense.

Boxcar

NJ Stinks
07-10-2013, 02:36 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/09/Drudge-Hits-Media-Over%20Obama-Afghanistan-Casualties

Media once again covering for Obama

I think many here made comments at the end of that "report". :sleeping:

fast4522
07-10-2013, 07:41 AM
A better title might be "Sociopath's and the old men that love them".

Robert Goren
07-10-2013, 08:50 AM
Do mostie and Bobby even know how many have died in Afbamastan since he too office?

Remember, Obama said victory in Afbamastan was not a goal, that it would be insulting to muslims. Look it up in your Funk&Wagnells.I know it is too many. We should have been pulling out instead of doing the surge.

Tom
07-10-2013, 10:46 AM
Then it is not Bush's fault.
Duh.

rastajenk
07-10-2013, 11:30 AM
chef-de-race used to have a casualty count banner at the top of its site. Now there's just pretty pictures of Costa Rica.


:cool:

Robert Goren
07-10-2013, 12:00 PM
Then it is not Bush's fault.
Duh. No, it is not. He got some bad advise from his sec of defense who had kept from GWB and Senators like McCain and Graham, but ultimately it was his decision. I just wonder how many of his critics would be praising him if he had pulled instead of trying the surge first. I doubt you would have to take off your shoes to count them.

Tom
07-10-2013, 12:55 PM
Surge worked in Iraq.
In spite Obama saying it would not.

mostpost
07-10-2013, 01:03 PM
No, it is not. He got some bad advise from his sec of defense who had kept from GWB and Senators like McCain and Graham, but ultimately it was his decision. I just wonder how many of his critics would be praising him if he had pulled instead of trying the surge first. I doubt you would have to take off your shoes to count them.

It is Bush's fault, not for invading Afghanistan, but for taking his eye off the prize. The prize being Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. If he had done what he should have done; that is, capture bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda Obama would not be in the situation he is in now.

History tells us you can not win a war in Afghanistan, but you can be successful if you go in with limited objectives, achieve those objectives and get out. The key is to have a workable exit strategy from the beginning.

Perhaps Obama made the wrong decision by ordering the surge, but he would not have had to make any decision if Bush had handled the situation properly to begin with.

Tom
07-10-2013, 01:39 PM
More from Mount BS.
Obama KNEW what he was getting into when he ran for office.
The economy is HIS.
The middle east is HIS.
HE sought them, HE owns them.
Bush stopped having any part in any of it when he left office.
Time to put on your big-boy pants and suck it up.
You backed a loser.

Robert Goren
07-10-2013, 01:43 PM
Surge worked in Iraq.
In spite Obama saying it would not. It sort of worked for a while thanks to a lot of palms being greased. But now Iraq is not only as bad as was before the surge, but probably is as bad before GWB invaded it as well. The guy (al-Maliki) who GWB put in is turning out to be as ruthless as Hussein, but is a puppet of Iran as well. Iraq is now in a three sided civil war with plenty of atrocities on all sides. If that is working, I'd hate to see failure.

NJ Stinks
07-10-2013, 06:58 PM
You backed a loser.

Fact: The guy you backed lost the last two presidential elections.

Fact: You are so confused, you don't even know when you backed a loser.

Hint: Try cashing a ticket on either of your last two presidential picks. That might help you grasp reality for a change. :rolleyes:

Tom
07-10-2013, 11:48 PM
There is a difference between losing and being a loser.
Obama is a loser.
You are just to blind to the see the obvious.

fast4522
07-11-2013, 07:25 AM
So so many of us are not willing to call a spade a spade, the fact is that both sides would have used different wording forty years ago beginning with the letter T. It is the time that we live in that has us wrapped up in our own self indulgence. Forty years from now will be when the picture will be seen in its entirety, will the dead be accurate for what they say today?