MRC study finds reporting on Iraq "inordinately gloomy" but doesn't offer facts to back its findings
Appearing on the October 13 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Media Research Center (MRC) president L. Brent Bozell III made the remarkable claim that, "if you've looked at any study that we've ever done, no one has ever questioned the findings that we've come up with." This assertion is false; the "studies" that the MRC conducts are often based on faulty assumptions, techniques, and conclusions. They surely have been questioned, not least by Media Matters for America.
Bozell was responding to co-host Alan Colmes's assertion -- about the latest MRC "study" on the alleged bias in news coverage of Iraq -- that because the MRC is a conservative advocacy organization, "[w]e can't take your word as a fair and balanced, objective look at this, correct?" Colmes was half-right: The MRC's work is neither fair nor balanced -- but not because its researchers are conservative advocates. Having an ideological perspective does not preclude the production of work that is transparent, that is rooted in fact, and that makes a clear distinction between fact and opinion; but the MRC simply chooses not to do so. As Media Matters has detailed, the MRC's primary method of operation is to produce "studies" purporting to show the skew of news coverage by defining anything that does not repeat conservative spin as evidence of "liberal bias."
The MRC's latest "study," titled "TV's Bad News Brigade," which analyzes television news coverage of the Iraq war, is no different. The "study" charges that television news is "giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation," while "the positive accomplishments of U.S. soldiers and Iraq's new democratic leaders [are] being lost in a news agenda dominated by assassinations, car bombings and casualty reports."
The obvious question, which the MRC never addresses, is what exactly is "inordinate" about the gloominess of the coverage. The "study" has no referent of what accurate coverage might be. Any news story that reports on terrorist acts or political instability seems to have been labeled "pessimistic." We say "seems to" because the MRC website contains no description of the coding instrument used to derive the "study's" figures nor any link to the raw data. Rather, the "study" contains extensive anecdotes about what MRC considers "positive" and "negative" coverage of developments in Iraq.
So what exactly constitutes a "negative" story in the MRC's eyes? A hint is provided by the fact the report describes bombings and American casualties as "pessimistic developments"; at another point, American casualties are described as "another discouraging topic." But the study ignores the relationship between reporting from Iraq and actual events in Iraq. For example, the study notes that just over half of the network stories in January and February "presented a negative slant" on the situation in Iraq, but that number "swelled to 73 percent" in August and September. But the study made no mention of the fact that U.S. deaths in Iraq from hostile action in January and February totaled 96 and "swelled" to 119 in August and September.
It does not seem to have occurred to the MRC that news coverage of the war might be extremely "negative" because -- to name just a few of the factors weighing on reports of the situation in Iraq -- terrorist attacks occur every day; the Iraqi army has exactly one battalion capable of fighting on its own; nearly 2,000 Americans have been killed and more than 14,000 wounded; the political situation is in constant danger of disintegration; and the country may be in danger of slipping into a civil war. One wonders exactly what sort of coverage of the Iraq war the MRC is looking for. Perhaps the answer was best summed up in this exchange between host Jon Stewart and correspondent Rob Corddry on a recent edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show:
CORDDRY: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?
STEWART: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?
CORDDRY: That's right, Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers, to the gradual withdrawal of our allies, to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.
I'm sorry, but this repeated whining from the Right about "negative coverage" of Iraq is wearing thin. Wars generate bad news! Get over it! Could it possibly be that things are actually not so hunky dory over there? Let's see, which is more newsworthy; 30 people killed in a bombing IN FRONT OF A POLICE STATION, or some soldiers slapping a coat of paint on a school? Wow, tough decision! The GOP's tireless attempts to put lipstick on this pig are getting pathetic.
Are you sure you want to reduce our men and women's honor and sacrifice to "some soldiers slapping a coat of paint on a school"?
I'm afraid you may have inadvertently illustrated Bozell's point.
"I'm afraid you may have inadvertently illustrated Bozell's point." --left045
--------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me for being obtuse, but I don't understand. Could you please elaborate?
Nice try, but that's not my point and you know it. The complaint we hear most often is that the media doesn't report enough of the good things that are happening in Iraq. When asked, "Like what?" they inevitably talk about all the schools that we've opened, etc.
Our soldiers are fighting and dying over there, and they are brave and honorable. However, the fact that they are being killed is BAD NEWS. Their honor and bravery does not save the bad policy that put them over there.
Maybe the NeoCons would be happier with a daily casualty count on the news like we had in VietNam? They'd really scream then.
Spare me your phony patriotic lecture about "not honoring the troops". It's a bogus GOP talking point, and you know where you can put it.
Furthermore, the news reports I've seen have been very deferential about the sacrifices made by our troops, as well as their military successes. But then, you know that, as do all the GOP propagandists.
What they are REALLY crying about is that not enough people are hailing G.W.Bush as a modern day Caesar, or proclaiming how absolutely brilliant he was for invading Iraq. That's the bottom line.
The MRC has to "help Bush out" any way they can. Based on the polls they do, the MRC membership is almost pavlovian in the responses. Everything is the fault of "the left" and, were it not for them, everything would be fine.
Bozell was responding to co-host Alan Colmes's assertion -- about the latest MRC "study" on the alleged bias in news coverage of Iraq -- that because the MRC is a conservative advocacy organization, "[w]e can't take your word as a fair and balanced, objective look at this, correct?"
A conservative group could theoretically do objective work. Media Matters rightly notes that MRC could but simply doesn't do such work, but it's also a fact that the MRC doesn't even have such work as a goal; the duplicity of Bozell's remarks to Colmes on this point is breathtaking. Here's how Bozell defined the mission of the MRC in 2001:
"We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush."
"We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush."
That sentence vibrates with the sound of jackboots on the march.
Bushco sold the folks on the fantasy that we'd be welcomed with open arms as liberators and it just hasn't quite worked out the way they hoped (dreamed?) it would. Now they're stuck with a mess that has weakened our country, emboldened our enemies, with no end in sight. In the new mediaspeak accurate reporting is biased; when the press does its job the warmongers cry 'foul'. I'm sure they would love to control all the info coming out of Iraq, but even their immense power, fortunately, has its limits. They best they can do is the pathetic, transparently scripted conversation with the troops infomercial from yesterday. And McClellan even had to lie about that. Who are they fooling anymore?
BTW, I have seen several lighter, more positive pieces on TV and on NPR dealing with more human interest stuff, but, as you correctly point out, war is generally about bad news, unless you're reporting that it's over.
"Inordinately gloomy" It could be and should be a much more gloomy picture from Iraq but the complicit corporate media hasn't reported much gloom at all.
No dead soldier photo included in the corporate media (thanks to pressure from the Bush regime).
No flag draped coffins photo or two (thanks to the Bush regime).
Not even much of the civilian death has been covered by this pathetic media.
War and the inevitable remnants and aftermath are never pleasant, this is simply why it hasn't been reported or shown in detail on TV or newsprint. Remember these media corporations repeated the lies about how this would amount to a cakewalk with hugs, kisses and candy from the liberated, didn't happen and they can't admit they were wrong, just like the Bush regime. And of course the corporate media is just cheerleading for this administration like no other time in our short history. The corporate keepers of the flame continue to evade anything resembling what is really going on in Iraq, the truth will begin to come to light for those that haven't seen it yet. Sure some reporting has been somewhat truthful, but this Iraq debacle has been hidden for the most part of the last many years. Part of the reason must be that some of our most respected media giants have been part of the lie (NYT and Miller for example) and they don't have the guts to take a stand against the creepy Bush regime.
Indeed.
And before any Bush apologists fly off the handle, it is important to note that advocates of complete news coverage do not want bad things to happen. But if and when bad things do happen, we want to know about it, because that's the truth of the matter.
And sugar coating the struggle does a disservice to the men and women in the armed forces and to the American people at large.
Thanks deeznuts for qualifying what needs to be reported by our once brilliant media, there was a time when censoring and blatant propaganda wasn't the norm especially during a time of war. The stark contrast of our current cheerleading corporate media to just a few decades ago is troubling, propaganda, censorship have been around for decades but the definition of such activity has been changed to a new and creepy level maybe never seen before in our country. It is really helpful to surf the web for content from foreign sources about some of the censored subjects forbidden in our MSM (what a dunce we have as a president, what really goes on in Iraq, etc.), more stark contrast.
Appearing on the October 13 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Media Research Center (MRC) president L. Brent Bozell III made the remarkable claim that, "if you've looked at any study that we've ever done, no one has ever questioned the findings that we've come up with." This assertion is false; the "studies" that the MRC conducts are often based on faulty assumptions, techniques, and conclusions.
One of the funniest examples of this I can remember was from an MRC "study" back in 2001 regarding Bush's then-proposed tax cuts. At the time, Democrats were arguing that the cut was too big, and MRC graded the coverage based on how news reports characterized the size of the tax cut. They didn't have to say the cut was "too big" to get slammed for liberal bias, though; they just had to say it was "big", "large", etc., as though it was some sort of liberal lie to note that $1.6 trillion (the size of the cut) was a lot of money. Even more hilariously, this was counterpointed against those in the press who called the cut "small." Big surprise: Practically no one did. Liberal media!
MRC=oxymoron. Research? What some of these pundits call themselves doesn't pass the laugh test.
It is clear that Media Matters for America is not serious about evalutating MRC studies, beginning with the notion that they have to characterize it as a "study." Has MMFA ever taken the time to examine the Nexis transcripts of 1400 stories? I don't think so. So perhaps they should print out the same stories that the MRC did, take a month or two analyzing the transcripts, and actually tell people what they found about them.
Classicliberal2 has a point with his argument about our tax-cut study. We found that reporters loved describing the tax cut as "massive." You can argue that it's not biased to call it "massive." But you can't argue that this was not the pattern of media coverage. The finding is "objective." It's not made up. The parameters, you can argue, argue a point of view.
And you can't generally argue that the media uses words like "massive" to describe other things government proposes. The Medicare prescription drug subsidy package for seniors, for example, could be similarly described as "massive." But the networks routinely suggested it was not ambitious enough. I would call that a bias toward greater government -- a liberal bias.
P.W. is also incorrect to assert that Rich Noyes never defines what is "inordinately" gloomy. Here's one passage: "Nearly every journalist would agree that it is important to show the grisly reality of terrorist activity in Iraq. But by placing such a heavy emphasis on these bloody attacks, the networks are also giving the enemy some of the terrifying publicity they seek."
"It is clear that Media Matters for America is not serious about evalutating MRC studies, beginning with the notion that they have to characterize it as a "study.""
Is there something derogatory or inaccurate about "study"? You just used the same term!
"You can argue that it's not biased to call it "massive." But you can't argue that this was not the pattern of media coverage. The finding is "objective." It's not made up. The parameters, you can argue, argue a point of view."
If it's not biased to call it massive, the pattern of media coverage was therefore not biased. It's not the objectivity of the findings that are the problem, it's the subjectivity of the interpretation.
"And you can't generally argue that the media uses words like "massive" to describe other things government proposes. The Medicare prescription drug subsidy package for seniors, for example, could be similarly described as "massive." But the networks routinely suggested it was not ambitious enough. I would call that a bias toward greater government -- a liberal bias."
It's a relative measure. Clearly the 1.6 trillion dollar initiative was large by any standard (hence the unusual use of the terms that you note), while the Medicare package may not have been. If the MRC study was basing its findings on the contrast between people who are saying the tax cut was large and people saying it's small, and nobody said it's small, then you have to be arguing that everybody in the media is liberal. You can't argue that, period, and so throwing other issues into that discussion is just blowing smoke.
"Nearly every journalist would agree that it is important to show the grisly reality of terrorist activity in Iraq. But by placing such a heavy emphasis on these bloody attacks, the networks are also giving the enemy some of the terrifying publicity they seek."
And how is that a definition? It's still based purely on subjectivity. If there is a great deal of violent activity in Iraq, then how would it be covered accurately without a "heavy emphasis" on that?
As someone who's been to the MRC page, I know that page is full of it. If both sides of an issue are presented, it's bias. If someone accurately attributes an opinion to a Republican instead of espousing it as a fact themselves, that's bias. It's not interested in the truthfulness or accuracy of a story, it's only necessary criteria is that it is anti-republican. If you are indeed part of that site, for you to come here and criticize the validity of anything that is posted here is utterly laughable. Your site is a contemptible joke.
My apologies, "study" was MMfA's usage, not yours. I am a bit under the weather, so I am not reading everything accurately today.
Still, considering that there really seems to be no objective basis to it, why should it be given any credibility? The MRC has a history of shaping it's work largely, if not entirely, around partisan subjectivity. This "study" doesn't appear to be any different, so why should they give it undue respect?
I stand by everything else I wrote, and I am curious to see if there is any defense available to you.
What MRC does is political spin, not science. One of the basic tenets of scientific study is replicability. In order to allow others to replicate your study you have to be specific about the methods you use, including a way to code the events you are counting. This means providing definitions precise enough so that the study could be recreated. MRC did not provide such a coding instrument. And you are right, brabantio, the "definition" tim graham provided is not a definition at all.
tim graham: "but the networks routinely suggested it was not ambitious enough" then if it was "routinely" you must have dozens of examples for us.
Classicliberal2 has a point with his argument about our tax-cut study. We found that reporters loved describing the tax cut as "massive." You can argue that it's not biased to call it "massive." But you can't argue that this was not the pattern of media coverage. The finding is "objective." It's not made up. The parameters, you can argue, argue a point of view.
Here's the "study" in question: [link to www.mediaresearch.org]
It's MRC's interpretation that is without any merit. Arguing that a $1.6 trillion tax cut is too large and expensive is an argument against it; merely noting that the cut involved a lot of money is noting a basic, objective fact. MRC intentionally conflated the two and presented them as though they were the same thing. This was done solely in order to massively exaggerate the amount of opposition the tax cut proposal had received. This absurdly inflated number was then counterpointed against the number of sources who said the tax cut was "small" or "just the right size," both of which appear in the coverage only as a partisan counter to the notion of the cut being too large.
So we have, in this "study," a counterpoint being tallied, and a counter-counter-point being tallied, and the two measured against one another. What's missing? The original point itself: the arguments offered by Bush and the Republicans FOR the cut, in the first place. Coverage of this is what any serious study would have counterpointed against the coverage of the Democratic criticism, but MRC doesn't even include it in the scope of their enquiry, and never even addresses it. Instead, we get the #1 criticism of the tax cut offered by opponents counterpointed against a relatively infrequently offered counter-counter-point. A self-evidently stacked deck.
And so on. This is NOT serious work.
"giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation," while "the positive accomplishments of U.S. soldiers and Iraq's new democratic leaders [are] being lost in a news agenda dominated by assassinations, car bombings and casualty reports."
The media would have to exceed reasonable limits of "gloomy" in order for the quote to be accurate and they dont..for example by saying that "there are 30 deaths on said day and 100 injured" they are not reporting an inordinately gloomy portrait just facts which fall within reasonable limits to the news obtained that day. On a side note when I get the news on a nightly basis I dont want puff pieces, I dont care about how many schools are built or what a great time soldiers are having there, thats not what people are dying for, you want to pat yourself on the back go in my old neighborhood and rebuild a school there. Also to say that leaders in Iraq are "democratic" is really stretching it, lets wait and see how they act after we are gone before labeling them the next founding fathers. When soldiers go to war they are always,for the most part, going to look at what they are doing as positive and just, its what helps you get motivated and through the day, no one wants to feel like this mission in Iraq was a major mistake and waste of time and lives if your there currently. Iam sure that many of those who have lost children(soldiers) in Iraq would probably feel the same way as the soldiers currently there in order to make the loss feel less painful. Cindy Sheehan and like minded people being the exceptions. Republicans want you to remember that death is a part of war and then say "dont show the death so much"....a war with no death is called being on vacation..not war.
before any right-wingers start trying to get cute with my words and say that they agree that death is a part of war and for that reson the left is wrong to harp on numbers remember that for the most part the complaining is not that death isnt a part of war but that the deaths in THIS war should have happened because the WAR in Iraq shouldnt have happened. If a war is necessary to protect americans, which Iraq is not, then the left would not disagree. The exception being extremely left points of view which is not the majority of my party, friends, or associates as the right would have you believe...
..... in THIS war should have happened
the line should read "in THIS war should NOT have happened" sometimes I type a lil bit to fast sorry folks..
Iraq Charter Seems Assured of Approval.
The AP reports that Iraq's constitution seemed assured of passage Sunday despite strong opposition from Sunni Arabs, who turned out in surprisingly high numbers in an effort to stop it.
There's progress and "good news" that will be hard to hide...but I'm sure some will try to make it "inordinately gloomy".
sure sweeney, we heard all this last january with the iraqi elections: everything's great, we've turned the corner. you libs look like fools now.
Right on schedule...mefirst, a liberal, trying to make the good news "inordinately gloomy".
Despite the howl of protest here...it looks like MRC had a valid point...your post is one case that proves some liberals can't accept any good news.
i notice you didn't address my point sweeney. i said we heard all this last january and we're nowhere closer to withdrawing than we were then. and is it "good news" that the sunnis are so opposed to the constitution? your bush-worshipping is the problem, not my refusal to accept your delusions. who's been right so far? your side?
"mefirst, a liberal, trying to make the good news "inordinately gloomy""
Well, one could just as easily argue that you're making it inordinately cheerful. The prospect of an Islamic state where a significant portion of the people are strongly opposed to the constitution...that's hardly a situation to be thrilled over. Sounds like the foundation for civil war.
So how does that prove the MRC's point? Anything that isn't cheerleading and spinning every development proves liberal bias?
- Well, one could just as easily argue that you're making it inordinately cheerful. The prospect of an Islamic state where a significant portion of the people are strongly opposed to the constitution...that's hardly a situation to be thrilled over. - brabantio ================================================================
"Inordinately cheerful"?...Now that's a laugh. The sunnis represent about 20% of the Iraqi population...about the same support that Ross Perot received...somehow I don't recall the civil war that it sparked in America.
Your quick spin that a democratically approved constitution is somehow gloomy makes the MRC case.
so ross perot got 20 % of the vote and we didn't have a civil war? you could say that about every losing candidate. but guess what? we accept that someone will win. that doesn't equate to the iraqi constitution if the sunnis don't accept it. poor example, but hardly surprising.
- we accept that someone will win. that doesn't equate to the iraqi constitution if the sunnis don't accept it - mefirst ================================================================
Well...there you go again...displaying your liberal elitism. Why don't you just come out and say it...you think Iraqis are too stupid and uncivilized to understand democracy.
Look over your shoulder, that sound you're hearing is the timbers cracking under the bridge of your argument. Without any cheerleading...rational people would consider a democratic charter "good news" and not "inordinately gloomy" as you think.
nice try to deflect the argument sweeney but the debate is not what i think about the iraqis, but what is going to result from the election. it would be great if everything happened as you predict, but so far the actual situation has been the opposite in every case. you guys have been wrong time after time, but this time you've got it right? like i said, bumper sticker mentality.
- what is going to result from the election. - mefirst ================================================================
Recent polling shows widespread support for a new Iraqi constitution to be voted on Oct. 15, even in strongholds of Sunni Arab groups that are fighting to derail the charter.
Mehdi Hafedh, director of the Iraqi Center for Development and International Dialogue, said his latest survey showed that Iraqis are hoping the new constitution will be a first step toward the restoration of order.
"The Iraqi people want to finalize the political process as soon as possible. ... They want to establish a normal government and institutions," Mr. Hafedh said yesterday.
The poll of 3,625 Iraqis, conducted Sept. 14 to 19, showed 79 percent in favor of the draft constitution and 8 percent opposed. The remainder did not respond.
Certification of this new constitution by democratic process sure looks like it sits well with the Iraqi people and that's good news...not gloom. It looks like MRC was correct, at least in your world of doom spinning.
sweeney at 249pm: "widespread support for a new iraqi constitution...even in strongholds of sunni arab groups", and at 1258pm: "strong opposition from sunni arabs, who turned out in surprisingly high numbers in an effort to stop it." what's a guy to believe?
I heard extensive coverage of the expected passage of the Constitution on NPR this morning. Aren't they supposed to be the worst liberal spinners?
By the way, I don't recall Perot supporters blowing themselves up in the weeks before the election, do you? Maybe they did, and the "liberal media" just didn't report it.
"Well...there you go again...displaying your liberal elitism. Why don't you just come out and say it...you think Iraqis are too stupid and uncivilized to understand democracy."
I think that was the White House position, hon.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
>> "We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
Thanks for reminding us of that little gem, Sagra. Funny how the "liberal media" has let that story fade away.
Sagra - Monday October 17, 2005 10:25:17 AM EST -
This 'liberal elitist' knows that when my anscestors were wearing goatskins, the Iraqis anscestors(then Sumerians and Akkadians) were writing the codes of Hammurabi.
- television news is "giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation - mmfa on MRC ================================================================
In one of television's inadvertently funny moments, the NBC News correspondent was paddling in a canoe during a live report about flooding in Wayne, N.J. While she talked, two men walked between her and the camera _ making it apparent that the water where she was floating was barely ankle-deep.
"It's not like we were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't," spokeswoman Lauren Kapp said.
================================================================ "Inordinate gloom" is everywhere you look on TV news...regardless of the subject. TV news is pathetic and untrustworthy.
- is it "good news" that the sunnis are so opposed to the constitution? - mefirst ================================================================
In the words of Pres.Reagan...there you go again. The election is "good news" and progress. Your sunni statement is just so much straw. Keep it up...you're making MRC's point.
Do you genuinely believe that the strong opposition just doesn't mean anything? It's irrelevant?
"Facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
neither you or mrc have a "point" sweeney. it's just slogan after cliche with you guys. it's "good news" cause i say so. bumper sticker intellect, which is why the republican party is so popular with your ilk.
- what's a guy to believe? - mefirst ================================================================
"When I went to the polling center, I found that everything was organized," said a man who gave his name as Samad, standing outside one Baghdad polling place on Sunday.
"No-one forced us to write 'Yes' or 'No'. We chose." ==============================================================
"All indications we are getting ... are encouraging and positive for a 'Yes' vote for this constitution. This would be really a major achievement," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told CNN. "So my guess is, yes, it will be passed."
Ain't democracy wonderful...especially when it's not reported through the "inordinate gloom" prism. Keep spinning the election results into bad news and you will keep supporting the MRC position.
again sweeney nice try to deflect. nobody's arguing whether it passed, it seems it did and there really was no question that it would. so as usual a lot of hot air about nothing. the point of your post at 249 was that it had sunni support. but that was a total contradiction of your post at 1258. i realize you guys just make it up but try not to contradict yourself in the same thread. and are there any more cliches you can haul out? cracking timbers, prisms...
Isnt the real queation not whether it would pass but if it wil be ratified later to the satisfaction of the sunnis, people need to stop comparing american systems to those of the middle east, they are not the same..Republicans love to stress about "democracy" in that region but then will silently mutter that "yeah its not a typical democracy, but its a democracy" ..there was democracy in that region the same way there is supposed democracy in Cuba before the invasion. The loss of life to set up a democracy that will not effect change in neighboring countries is a failure no matter what way you look at it. Hypocracy is what we are left with, when we ally ourselves with countries with blatant human right violations like saudia arabia,Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. The next civil war in that country will be a result of no sharing of oil revenues and what will result is a power struggle. The kurds WILL have conflict with neighboring turkey and I would love to see how the administration spins that new sh@t storm.
By the way no one on this site needs to make an effort to make reality seem gloomier than it is..on the contrary republicans make the situation inordinately cheery...we are building schools!!yeah!!!they are more islamic but they voted to be more islamic!!!!yeah!!!It will trickle into neighboring countries!!!(even though they cant even resolve there own conflicts)yeah!!!........there have been many news articles highlighting the growing human right violations already starting to manifest in this new "democracy". All we did in that country is make the oppressed the oppressor.
It will be interesting to watch in the coming months and years as another Islamic theocracy emerges in Iraq. When it becomes another hotbed of resentment toward the west, what will the Bush apologists say then?
What will the Bush apologists say then?
With the same stubborn arrogance they will spew the same talking points of how millions have been liberated and how democracy spreads freedom...........
Just imagine how gloomy it is now for women in Iraq currently for example. And with the emerging theocracy that will be undoubtedly worse for women than before our ridiculous adventure to "liberate them". Civil war is in the cards, our continued military presence, etc. makes "inordinately gloomy" an understatement if anything. To pretend as some have posted on this thread that this latest election was somehow proof that things are just rosy is absolutely as ignorant as believing the connection of Iraq with 911. There is no way of avoiding much more chaos before things calm down even the slightest and the lying into this debacle by the neocons with the support of the MRC and the rest of the cheerleading apologists will continue with the same relentless blather we have heard for years.
"what will the Bush apologists say then?"
"Nobody saw it coming".
I can hear Condi Rice now: "No one could have imagined that they might elect hard line Islamists and establish a repressive theocracy."
It would have been impossible for anyone to even imagine such a thing!