Yeah, bad media. Pooh on them. Boo-hoo.
Yeah, bad media. Pooh on them. Boo-hoo.
Media being unbalanced? Well, then go looking. The BBC and the aust ABC have been quite fair.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...732136278.html
Interesting reading with the current discussion
With nothing to offer, you concede the point?Originally posted by Dutchy
Yeah, bad media. Pooh on them. Boo-hoo.
What truth is there to the news that the turkey W brought to Iraq was fake? Supposedly it was a prop designed for the picture that circled the world.
Some of my friends have told me about it, and in a talk radio show here they were talking about it.
They said the Washington Post reported about it, but I have been unable to track the original newsbit.
I believe that it's true, the turkey was a fake.
The perfect complement to a fake war then.
what was a great PR move has been turned into a poor and backfiring stunt. Surely they could have had a real turkey.Originally posted by JediBoricua
The perfect complement to a fake war then.
Air Force one has a big kitchen right?
Link?Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
I believe that it's true, the turkey was a fake.
Big deal, the turkey was fake. Makes a nice picture though.
Oh, and on another board a posters brother was there. The feeling was apparently very appreciative that Bush took the time to go out there. So who cares about PR, it made their day.
Go look it up in Google and the Washington Post. There's plenty on it there. Or www.smh.com.auOriginally posted by Agent Charley
Link?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3294501.stm
Here is one from the BBC.
I'm trying to look for the original source, the Washington Post article, but can't find it.
The problem is Reaper that the WH is using the whole Thanksgiving visit as a makeup operation on the war. It leaves a lot to be desired to watch the president carry a gourgeous looking bird, to only learn that the troops were served regular meals.
smh had nothing on it. Thanks for the BBC link.
So this is about the turkey being for decoration?
Pardon me while I fail to find this newsworthy. Did somebody expect the troops there to be fed by this one single superturkey? Should Bush have pulled a "bread and fish" style miracle out for the crowd?
Get over it.
I fail to see the newsworthyness as well. But as was stated, the visit was appreciated enough. But then what the hell was the point of the turkey? The visit was enough of a gesture, why pull a lame stunt like that? For the sake of PR and a pretty cliched picture? Please.
The problem is that there was no media at Iraq, so this is the picture the WH decided to distribute.
They could as easily distributed a picture of him shaking hands, hugging soldiers, telling a joke, but no, Karl Rove decided to wash the face of the worst month in Iraq by having W carry the most important symbol of Thanksgiving...a fake turkey.
Re-read. The turkey was real. Incidentally, turkey was served to the troops.Originally posted by JediBoricua
The problem is that there was no media at Iraq, so this is the picture the WH decided to distribute.
They could as easily distributed a picture of him shaking hands, hugging soldiers, telling a joke, but no, Karl Rove decided to wash the face of the worst month in Iraq by having W carry the most important symbol of Thanksgiving...a fake turkey.
What do you want? Sterling silverware and fine china?
The perfect complement to a fake war then.
Sorry bud, you'd have to lube me up with 55 minutes of moorish propaganda before you could get that bird to fly.
I can just see it now. Coming to a TV near you Christmas 2003, Treegate. The president puts special emphasis on his christmas decorations, but this investigative reporter went under cover to find out the real truth behind George W. Bush's plastic christmas tree. We'll unravel this tree of lies, tonight at 10.
The vast right-wing conspiracy must be spinning in its grave.
lolz @ turkeygate
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...q_executions_5
And I quote someone who rana death comparison:
Human Rights watch puts mass murders at 290,000
People that disappeared and prosumed dead at 200,000
Chemical attacks in 1983- 30,000
Kurds 75,000
Kids that have dead from hunger or turture, and ect... because of the regime in the last 5 years. 400,000
Prisoners executed
4000
3000
2500
122
23
130
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5773
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...0030404-1.html
If you just average and not take the time such as the kids in 5 years instead of 20, we get this
1,004,775 in 20 years
that equals to 4187 a month
The innocent deaths since March is around 5000
(This includes all those that were killed by Saddam's men)
There has been 9 months since the start of the war.
4187 X 9 = 37,683
37,683 > 5000
adjust and cut the number in half and Saddam has still killed more.
You forgot a lot of stuff, like all the Iranians Saddam killed, many of whom were my cousins, and then there were the Iraqis living outside the major cities who simply died of neglect because all Saddam cared about was getting electricity to Baghdad. I've done those calculations before, and came up with a rough figure of an average of 324 deaths a day between 1979 and 2003 as a result of Saddam. That assumes that he was responsible for 3 million deaths, which I think is a rather liberal estimate.
Oh yeah, I'm sure the figures aren't exact. But when you can estimate that casualties would be up by 700% if there hadn't been a war, you start to wonder how bad this war was.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks