Was falluja attack (forgive spelling) held off?

Than why did the major networks sell the swiftvets hundreds of hours of airtime, more than they sold to any other single hate group.

And why wasn't MoveOnPAC allowed to buy a 30 second slot during the superbowl, even though they were offering more than what a normal superbowl slot would cost? The ad showed children working and asked who was going to pay off the national debt. But during the same superbowl they show Britney Spears almost naked.
 
selling airtime is completely different than news commentary on the validity of the groups claims.

I have no idea how you are equate the Superbowl with the nightly news. Owners of the NFL, and the broadcaster have the right to sell airtime to anyone they choose, don't they? Or are we already living in a right wing totalitarian society with nationalized, government controlled news media?
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='ZarathosNY']
I don't know what media you were watching, but they were sure as hell not getting a lambasting in the media. Time and time again they were given air time to push their lies. The facts PROVE them as liars, yet the media presented them as credible.[/quote]

The same media you watched. Every show with a swiftboat rep wasn't called to trumpet their cause, they were invited to be ripped by the interviewers as liars. Then portrayed as liars by the DNC in various sunday shows and news outlets nationwide. Never was their story treated as valid by any of the major networks, they were mentioned only as attacks. Meanwhile, Kerry's record was never even questioned by the likes of Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Williams. I'd have no problem with this if they would openly admit themselves as left leaners instead of objective news reporters. The right wingers in the industry make no bones about their party affiliations.[/quote]


Sorry, but you are wrong. They were never ripped as liars as they should have been. They shouldn't have even been on TV.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
I agree that the situation should have been taken care of months ago. ... Contrary to popular democratic belief, every action by the president and the millitary is not intended to decieve the american people. [/quote]
The military, no. They were ready, willing and able to take care of the Falluja situation a couple of months ago. The president and his politican advisors, though - you better BET their job is to manipulate and decieve the American people. Which is why they forced the military to hold off on their attack until it was more politically viable (meaning after the election, when any casualties couldn't hurt Bush anymore.)

Your logic is also fallible. Why wait to attack after the election? Wouldn't it be advantageous to launch the attack before the election to solidify the necessity of keeping Bush in office during a major assault? I, for one, wouldn't want to vote against Bush during a major conflict and send a mixed message to the terrorists.
Click to expand...

The fact that they were on the eve of a major assault was, I suspect, just as helpful as the assualt actually occuring, without the risk of casualty reports hurting Bush's election chances. If, for instance, the Falluja insurgents happened to have a couple of rocket launchers and managed to take out a couple of hundred US soldiers, you better believe that news would have hurt Bush on the eve of the election.

The timing of this was perfect - they had the full benefit of the 'troops in action' advantage, without any messy results to bite them on the butt.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't think the attack timing had anything to do with the election, I think it was a sincere effort to wait after Ramadan, it's a REAL big deal for them and any attack could severly worsen (yes, worsen) our image over there. [/quote]

So why didn't they wait until Ramadan was actually over? They could have set up the troops, kept the city isolated and then attacked in a week. Considering that they've been putting off the attack for a couple of months now, would another week have actually hurt?

The fact that they put off a major assault for quite literally a day or two after the election is far too obvious to be anything other than election manipulation. And it worked.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='camoor']I don't think the attack timing had anything to do with the election, I think it was a sincere effort to wait after Ramadan, it's a REAL big deal for them and any attack could severly worsen (yes, worsen) our image over there. [/quote]

So why didn't they wait until Ramadan was actually over? They could have set up the troops, kept the city isolated and then attacked in a week. Considering that they've been putting off the attack for a couple of months now, would another week have actually hurt?

The fact that they put off a major assault for quite literally a day or two after the election is far too obvious to be anything other than election manipulation. And it worked.[/quote]

Who knows the state of intelligence the US forces were receiving. For all we know, they could have learned that the terrorists planned an attack on November 5th and US commanders decided to begin the assault before they had a chance to consolidate their forces. The point is we DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS, so it's irresponsibe to assume that republicans were delaying this operation instead of the millitary commanders in the field. I'm not saying it's out of the question, though. With presidential politics, anything's possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top