Melanie Morgan.

Well she is attractive if not very bright.

One reason the MSM doesn't spend much time on the 'destruction of al-Qaeda' in Iraq is that they were never there in the first place.

"One reason the MSM doesn't spend much time on the 'destruction of al-Qaeda' in Iraq is that they were never there in the first place."

Arthur, you have written some visceral snippets over at OS, but this outright denial of reality is truly absurd. You must reside in an alterante universe if you actually believe what you've written.

Arthur --

Like most trolls, you exist purely to bait people by making negative or conflicting comments based on absolutely no knowledge or research, taking an opposing position over every single thing anyone posts. If rain was pouring down and someone blogged that it was raining out, you would comment that it wasn't.

Please understand, therefore, why my Arthur Stone(d) policy as of this comment will be to ignore you unless your comments arrive with a link to some solid evidence of that of which you comment.

Have a pleasant evening.

Old Soldier --

Arthur has completely destroyed any credibility with me as a commenter. He and Mr. Duck must either be romantically involved or the same person.

Melanie Moore didn't provide much in the way of citation for just how many al-Qaeda types we have killed in Iraq. She simply stated we had done so.

Al-Qaeda is a franchise with cells in nations around the world. The idea that they would all turn up to defend Iraq is ludicrous.

In fact the most prominent of them Zarqawi was considered a rival to Osama.

And speaking of dangerous al-Qaeda types, where is Osama?

Seth,
As we note from http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx US
casualties have indeed descended since April. But
we must also observe that since 2003 there have
been similar trends, sometimes punctuated by an
extraordinary month. It appears that 'enemy' forces have also changed over this period, from
Baathists, to imported terrorists to shiites, etc. Clearly, our tactics and experience play
a part. Call me provincial, but I have never heard of Melanie Morgan. But to say we are winning based on troop fatalities alone is rather thin logic. We won in Viet Nam for 8
years.

BB --

Melanie is both a conservative talk radio host in the Bay Area and also heads up a PAC called Move America Forward.

The decrease in casualties was only part of what she was trying to get across. Our troops are doing a lot of good things over there that the mainstream media ignores, because it would show that they are engaged, and have been engaging, in a lot of successful projects that are helping to rebuild the country, enliven the economy, educate the children and are gradually helping the Iraqi police and military forces become more and more self sufficient -- so much so that those forces that are ready have already taken over the lead in fighting the terrorists. All this would cast the Bush Administration's Iraq policies in a more positive light than the liberal media cares to see happen, so they simply ignore all the positives.

Melanie Morgan and Move America Forward work hard to get around the irresponsible and politically motivated selective reporting of the MSM and let Americans know what's actually happening in Iraq, which is a hell of a lot more positive than Americans know if they get all their news from the likes of the NYT, LAT, WaPo, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, etc.

BB --

You need to read the entire column -- the casualty figures are only one thing she cites, not her entire reason for saying that we're winning.

Seth,
OK, I read the entire column. The dichotomy presented from the right is that we are winning,
but there's a terrorist behind every tree. I'm
an old guy and spent a good part of life hearing
about the evil empire, the red threat, the missile gap (hell, I even taught a class in communism to GIs in the early sixties). Well,
they had 30,000 WWII tanks that drove the Pentagon nuts...but no ships. If you have a lot of spare time read James Carrol's 'House of War'
for a view of how foreign policy and military
power became entangled. (if you have incredible
spare time, his 'Sword of Constantine' is another enjoyable tome.) One result is that the major powers possess between 70,000-90,000 fission and thermonuclear weapons. This was
terrifying at one time when they were all pointing at each other. (its still a little
stultifying). While I am critical of Donald
Rumsfeld, I believe his idea of modernizing the
military into rapid-response brushfire special
force teams was correct. He got bogged before
he got far. The US does not face nuclear armaggedon, but scattered cells without home
countries. These are dangerous, but not nearly
so frightening as some (you, Ann, Cheney?)would
have us believe. We need to rethink our response
in light of US and Israeli projection of conventional power (F-16s, carriers, clusterbombs, smart-bombs) being less effective
than planned. Example: Lebanese infrastructure wiped out. Hezbollah still there and even helping to rebuild. We need to think about intelligence operations, diplomacy (We don't even
speak to Syria & Iran) and international friends.
We need people in the field fluent in Pharsi, Arabic and local dialect.We need to interdict the dovetailing of destitute, miserable and
desperate peoples with scheming clerics and criminals..we need to understand the terrorist
and what motivates him. You can call him any name you wish, but what extra motivations besides
religion make one strap on RDX? Oh, well, got
carried away there, I have no idea what the Democrats have to offer. Before I get back to
James Carrol, yes..I did read MS. Morgan. As
you may guess, though, I preferred Kimberly
Dozier (badly injured covering US grunts on
Memorial Day. MA in Middle East Studies, spent
a year in a Kibbutz, fluent in Arabic..yeah, I
know Seth, just another MSM 'liar'. Dang,
wore myself out...OK if I don't post for a couple days?

but there's a terrorist behind every tree. LOL!

I'll pick up a copy of House of War for my "to read" stack -- work has been keeping me majorly busy, I usually stay up all night working on projects when I'm not travelling to the physical sites -- but I still make time to read and do some blogging, which I'd like to be able to put more time into.

Next on my reading list is Middle East: Blueprint For the Final Solution by Mike M. Joseph.

As far as the magnitude of the threat by terrorists is concerned, there is evidence that about 20 suitcase nukes, originally designed for Spetznaz use, were sold to terrorists by a group of former KGB officers back in the 1990s -- specifically to bin Laden's people. If this is true, well...

The terrorists we face today are extremely clever -- who, besides Tom Clancy, that is, would've thought that some folks might turn commercial airplanes into missiles? And the plot that was just foiled in England was itself pretty ambitious. We're at a disadvantage here because the odds are in the bad guys' favor -- No matter how good our security measures are, if they keep trying, they'll eventually succeed.

BB, you're welcome here anytime, you provoke thought and, even though you evidently place more trust than I do in the MSM, somebody's got to keep them in business.

Seth,
Thanks for your tolerance. I recall the rumors
of various nuclear items getting 'lost' during
Glasnost. Now, THAT I worry about: one would
think if some group had one, we'd have been
blackmailed by now, but as you note, these people
are nothing if not patient. You are correct about my acceptance of MSM, although as of late there is more opinion and less fact. Its like the old TV game show 'Who Do You Trust?' lawyers, politicians, priests, scientists, journalists? (oh, and bloggers?)

BB --

One big difference is that if a blogger tells a fib (wittingly or unwittingly) chances are very good that someone, possibly another blogger, will come along and correct him/her, with evidence.

If I state something here, I believe it to be true -- if someone else comes along and tells me I'm wrong, I'll research it, unless they supply evidence I'm satisfied with -- on the other hand, if it's something I've researched or something related to what I do, and I know it to be true, then I'll say as much.

In this way, blogging is as much a learning experience as the sharing of ones opinions or, at times, the venting of ones anger or disaffection with something or other.

My problem with the MSM is that they are allowing their anti-Bush political agenda to dictate what to report and how to report it, so people who don't also go to alternative media and the Blogosphere don't get the whole picture.

This effectively shapes the opinions people take to the polls, and in my opinion the media is betraying a sacred trust -- society gives them more access and more rights, in some respects, than the average person has and in return we are right to expect straight news, totally impartial, totally fair. As you say, they're putting out more opinion and less news.

The blighters!

Seth,
Professor Corri Dauber at UNC runs a blog
specifically critical of MSM. If not familiar,
find at http://rantingprofs.typepad.com/
She is a communications prof, specializing in
US military matters. My only problem with her
analysis (and anyone elses, for that matter) is
lack of reconstruction..eg. here's the NYT article, here's what I don't like. The next, and I believe, clarifying step, would be to re-write
the same article so it's 'perfect', using the
same information. Perhaps its cynical, but it
appears that if we don't like what we hear, it
must be slanted...if I may project: in my case,
I absolutely detest R. Limbaugh, ergo anything
he states, I automatically reject. The 'kill
the messenger' syndrome..perhaps you see Christiane Ahmanpour in that light? But,
check out Dr. Dauber's blog..she's busy, but
accessible (and naturally dislikes Duke U across the street down there).

BB --

I went over to her site and checked it out, I like it. Left a comment.

The only problem with Dauber doing an article rewrite might be that there could be relevant information the reporter either didn't disclose or that was edited out for political reasons, which would render her rewrite as inaccurate as the journalist's may be.

You can tell how much creedence I place in the NYT, LOL. Back in the early 1980s I worked in the futures business in N.Y. I used to read the WSJ and the NYT financial pages religiously -- I have no qualms with the accuracy of what I read in NYT's business/finance section, because they need to be accurate -- even liberals have to make their money, right? -- and other sections that deal with cultural venues and so forth.

But when it comes to reporting on anything that has even the slightest relationship with anything that could even remotely be anywhere near the cusp of any issue construable as having any potential political connotations whatsoever, I would say that the NYT pages involved would make excellent birdcage lining -- liberal finches would love it!

I think Rush is fun. You have to remember, and I include Ann Coulter in this -- everybody's got a different way of getting points across -- Ann and Rush do it with showmanship, and it apparently works because of a) their tremendous followings and b) the amount of enmity they enjoy from the opposition. I mean enjoy as written -- they know that this mass inbound hatred is a mark of their success. :-)

Seth,
One might suppose that the statement
"Ann and Rush do it with showmanship, and it apparently works because of a) their tremendous followings and b) the amount of enmity they enjoy from the opposition. I mean enjoy as written -- they know that this mass inbound hatred is a mark of their success. :-)" may
apply as well to the Clintons? :-)

BB --

True, except the Clintons were a never ending story of skullduggery, perjury, treason, infidelity and deceit (I think I covered everything). They would have made for a popular primetime cable TV series, for those who enjoyed Dallas, Bracken's World, Dynasty, et al.

Seth,
There WAS primetime series--the impeachment
hearings. Guess your portfolio didn't do as
well as mine during those 'hard' years...

BB --

LOL!

I hadn't thought about the hearings that way, but now that you bring it up...