The mainstream media is untruthful (or fail to relay certain parts of information) continuously. Often, libtards accuse me of being a liar (Neurotic Tom, Crudkitty, BlueState idiot, Caday5, & "Ollie" to name a few - you may not know who they are since they are either banned, or trolls that troll around my other political sites, but they know who they are), then often will go to articles put out by the mainstream media to prove that I am a liar. However, what good is calling someone a liar if you are a liar and use lies to prove you're not a liar?
Let me give you an example of the media lies that the lying libtards depend upon so headily.
Charles Sennott, former Middle East bureau chief for the Boston Globe from 1997 to 2001 published a book that became a best seller in the Boston area called "The Body and the Blood: The Middle East's Vanishing Christians and the Possibility for Peace." The book purportedly documents a dramatically diminishing presence of Christianity in the Middle East. It speaks of a "Christian exodus" in the face of war, persecution, and radical Islam. In the prologue of the book he asks, "Is Christianity truly going to die out in the land where it began?"
CNN flashed a headline saying, "Christians Leaving Middle East," Jonathan Mann and Gerald Kessel, April 21, 1992, and the BBC has proclaimed "Christians Quit Christ's Birthplace," Roger Hardy, December 21, 2001. NPR indicated in one story "the dwindling number of Christians in the Middle East" during coverage of the Pope's visit to Syria, Morning Edition May 7, 2001; Denver Post stated in one of their stories that "once significant Christian communities [in the Middle East] have shrunk to a minuscule portion of their former robust selves. . . in fifty years they may well be extinct," Jonathan and Agota Kuperman, "Christian Eclipse in shadow of Radical Islam," op-ed Rocky Mountain News/Denver Post, December 22, 2001. The Guardian newspaper in London, U.K., suggests that Christians in the Middle East are becoming an "endangered species," William Dalrymple, October 30, 2001. In Toronto, Canada's Toronto Sun has claimed that "a time may come. . . when Christian communities of the Middle East no longer exist," Salim Mansur, "A Christian Exodus?", December 23, 2004.
Bloggers, often gathering their data from the media, are reporting the same, such as this post by the Modern Tribalist last year.
Here's the problem with all of these stories. They are not quite accurate.
A spiritual revolution, centering around Christianity, that is completely missed by the mainstream media, is under way throughout the Muslim World. In Cairo, Egypt, scores of Arabs are coming to Christ. On March 15, 2005, the Morocco Times ran an article titled "Why are Moroccans Converting to Christianity?" The newspaper published an article on January 24, 2006 titled "Evangelical Missionaries Back in the Limelight." A concert of contemporary Christian music has made its rounds of the country with large numbers of attendees, and no negative incidents, despite the fact that converts to Christianity generally face social ostracism. Newspapers and magazines estimate 25,000 to 40,000 Muslims have become followers of Christ in recent years, page 208, Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg. The growth of Christianity in Iraq and Iran, as reported by "Behind the Black Veil," Charisma, June 2004, is at an all time high as well as people in those areas search for freedom from the violence of Islam, and find it in the mercy of Christianity.
The point of me writing what you just read above was not to proselytize, but to point out the obvious errors in the reporting of our respected (well, not respected by me, but you know what I mean) mainstream media.
Hmmmm. So does that mean that journalists are willing to lie to get their story to say what they wish it to say?
Absolutely.
Now, let's turn to the recent reactions by the mainstream media (and liberal left Dems) to General Petraeus' report on Iraq, and yesterday's speech by George W. Bush. Los Angeles KFI Radio's John and Ken proclaimed, at the end of Bush's speech, that it was time for Bush to be led back to his rubber room. In Wisconsin, they reminded us that they believe, along with the Democrats, that Iraq is a diversion from the War on Terror, rather than a part of the War on Terror (by quoting Sen. Russ Feingold). Chicago scoffed at the plan to bring some of the troops home due to successes in the region, rather than bringing them all home in defeat all at once. AOL News was quick to remind us what Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to say when she slammed Bush's current plans regarding Iraq mainly because, according to Pelosi, the overall plan of the administration is to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq for ten years or more. They forget that even today we have a presence in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. We have only recently removed our presence from the Philippines which began after the Spanish American war in the 1890's! And of course the Huffington Post called General Petraeus Bush's political lackey, asked Petraeus to take off his rose colored glasses, as well as indicating that Petraeus is guilty of Al Qaeda Fearmongering. And finally, Hillary proclaimed on 9/11/07 that Bush and Petraeus were guilty of "the willing suspension of belief," and MoveOn.org decided to proclaim the General as being General BetrayUs, indicating that he is constantly at war with the facts.
However, Paul Couturier, the host of Independently Correct Radio, and regular participant on Political Pistachio Radio, an Iraq War Veteran who still has contact with a number of our troops, Iraq War Veterans I have talked to here in Southern California, General Petraeus, who is the commander of the operations in Iraq, and the President of the United States, all proclaim progress is being made in Iraq and that victory is on the horizon. Perhaps not as soon as The Left would demand, but the progress is such that the surge numbers will no longer be needed within the year. On my post, The General's Report, I explained the security and economic progress in Iraq, much of it based on government reports, and objective reporting outside the mainstream media.
In the beginning of this post I showed you an example how the media misses the obvious, and lies to support their agenda.
Now, when it comes to news regarding progress, or lack thereof, of the War on Terror, including the battlefield in Iraq, who are you going to believe? The liberal left who pays visits to the enemy, Hollyweird who rubs elbows with the enemy, and a mainstream media who has a vested interest in defeat - or the troops speaking on Political Pistachio Radio that have been on the ground in Iraq, the military General in charge of the battlefield in Iraq, and the President of the United States who is receiving much more information regarding the situation in Iraq than we are?
On my last broadcast Phil, a regular listener and participant in the program, made an interesting comment. He said the Left supported the President as long as we were victims. We had been hit by terrorists on 9/11 and that made us victims, and so it united the country. The moment we stopped becoming victims and took charge of the situation and struck back from a position of strength, the Left could no longer support the President of the United States, because they can only operate from the perspective of a victim, not a self-reliant entity.
Another point is this. Democrats and the Libtards seem to be shying away from a military solution of this war, and keep calling for a political end to the war. Their criticisms have been against the politics of Bush, and the weak political structure and lack of strong activities by the Iraq government. They also proclaim that there is not military solution to the war in Iraq, and that there cannot be a military solution to the war in Iraq. Now, let's look back in history. Vietnam was fought from a political point of view, and came to a political end, and was a disaster. Korea came to a political end, and is essentially still being fought. The two world wars, the American Civil War, and the American Revolution were fought purely by the military, and came to a military end by using a military solution. Now, looking back, which of these wars were victories, and which were failures?
We have no choice but to have a military end to Iraq, and using a military solution in the War on Terror. We cannot depart militarily from the region unless we do it from the position of victory and success, not in defeat. To depart in the form of a "cut and run" as the Democratic Party seems to desire will do nothing less than turn Iraq into a seething hive of terror sponsored by al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria, and a host of other "Hamas-like" groups. To finish the job in Iraq in the form of a military victory will leave a democracy in the state of Iraq with good ties to America in an area where it is most needed - and, less people will die in the long run - because a cut and run will simply lead to the wholesale slaughter of any Iraqi citizen that supported the United States' presence in Iraq. I guarantee a sudden departure from Iraq will result in many more deaths to innocent people than there ever will be as a result of our presence in that country.
It is sort of like tying a shoe. When my kids were young they had difficulty, as all children do when faced with a new challenge, tying their shoes. It took time to overcome the obstacles. It took patience to finally reach success and tie their shoes properly. But they stuck with it, determined to finish the job successfully, learning a valuable function that they would need and use throughout life.
I have a feeling libtards see their children struggling tying their shoes and just go out and buy their kids shoes with velcro instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment