You Gotta Love How Liberal Media Twists The Truth!

J.J. Jackson* | December 13, 2005

Just like most of us knew already, things are going well in Iraq. Things are definitely going a lot better now than they once did under Saddam’s rule. As true to form as the liberals are, as opposed to actually allowing the truth be told they find a way to manipulate it (in most cases, just lie) to fit their agenda.

This article is no different:

Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. ABC News

This would seem like good news. It would also seem reasonable that although there is a war going on their homeland, the changes that are to come have to be better than the ways things once were. You would also think that liberals, the human rights activists they are, would be happy about this.

But of course, there is always the hidden truth below all of this.

But views of the country’s situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups ? a study in contrasts between increasingly disaffected Sunni areas and vastly more positive Shiite and Kurdish provinces.

Oh no! You mean to tell me that within a nation, there are different cultures who feel differently about certain things? That sounds a lot like, America, the evil nation that we are!

Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

You know why most people feel that their own lives are going well? Because they are not in fear of being tortured, raped, maimed, killed, or whatever other atrocity you can imagine!

What surprises me is that ABC didn’t find a way to say something like, “over 25% of Iraqis feel their lives are not going well.” Now, that would really show that Bush’s war isn’t going well.

I was starting to think this article was showing the Iraq war in a positive light, but then:

Nonetheless, nationally, security is seen as the most pressing problem by far; 57 percent identify it as the country’s top priority. Economic improvements are helping the public mood.

Security is a big problem here in the United States, and we don’t even have a war happening on our soil! What is your point? Are people not supposed to be concerned with their national security?

Okay, here is finally some proof that the war in Iraq is not going well:

Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should “leave now” and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week’s election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).

No, it does not add up to forty-five percent. What ‘it’ does is show that out of those surveyed, twenty-six percent said U.S. and other coalition forces should leave now. Out of those surveyed, only nineteen percent said they should go after the government choses in this week’s election takes office. What the liberal media forgot to mention, or chose not to mention rather, is this still left fifty-five percent of those surveyed who did not feel the same sentiments as those who want the U.S. to leave either now or after the elections. What were those results?

The transparency of anything the liberal media chooses to print these days is beyond obvious; it is expected!

Maybe things in Iraq are not going perfectly, but that sort of happens in war. Mr. Murphy, of Murphy’s law, is bound to show up unexpectedly from time to time.

Instead of our so-called ‘patriotic’ liberals criticizing our U.S. forces each time Mr. Murphy comes around, perhaps they could support their efforts. I mean, it’s only our security and the security of the world at stake. Moreover, protecting Iraqi’s human rights should be considered a good thing.

Of course, this would mean Democrats would have to actually agree with President Bush on something. If they did that, what platform would they have?

Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com

Similar posts:

*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.