Newsweek Spins More Election Garbage and Supports Bush Agenda Again

I guess we can expect to see more and more of this from Newsweek, especially since Karl Rove joined their writing staff. It seems calculated that Rove joined a media source during this election year to yet serve the Bush/Cheney interests again. Along with that, it seems they’ve taken a shine to Hillary as well.  Just how connected with the Bush/Cheney administration is Clinton.

Today, Newsweek online shows an article by Michael Hirsh, titled “Sorry Barack, You’ve Lost Iraq“. Before looking at the article, what would you think that means? After you get some ideas in mind, go read the article but clicking on it’s title above.

The title doesn’t match the article at all. Instead, it seems like an attempt to put Barack Obama, who basically has nothing to do with the substance of the article, at a suggested “loss” of something. Is that suggested “loss” trying to suggest an election? Probably. It is interesting how irresponsible journalism can spin language and beliefs isn’t it?

The substance of the article clearly shows the arrogance of Bush again trying to slip something under the radar. Mr. Bush is in the middle east meeting with Iraqi government in negotiating a force to remain in Iraq. While he will attempt to withdraw troops, he’s working to cement a deal for troops to remain in Iraq. A deal, Hirsh states will obligate the next president.

Now from what I have read, here as an example from last year, a majority of Iraqi government folks don’t want US occupation. Clearly most Americans want out. So what is Mr. Bush doing? Is he trying to slip something by while we are distracted by elections? In Hirsh’s article, he states that Bush “is doing a good job of distancing himself from the politics of 2008″. But really it seems he is using politics again to slip something by. Candidate McCain recently remarked that he’s happy that “Iraq is no longer on the front pages of the media”. Funny that Hirsh states that Bush is distancing himself from the elections, however if you look up at the browser bar when reading his article, you will notice it shows “Bush Shakes Up ’08 Iraq Debate”. Well that sure doesn’t seem as if Mr. Bush is trying to separate himself from the elections.

Well I guess Iraq has fallen back from the front page, but it seems that the reason for this has something more to do with the slanted media than the importance of Iraq itself. If Mr. Bush is negotiating to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, I think most Americans would want to know about it. If he is obligating the next president to follow in his ruinous footsteps, this would seem another outrageous act on his part. Hirsh remarks that “it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.”

The upshot is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans, especially the ones being considered by the two leading Democratic contenders, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama, undeterred by the reported success of Bush’s surge, is pushing ahead with his plans for a brigade-a-month withdrawals that would remove the U.S. military presence entirely.

The last sentence in the above quote, is of course, the only one that refers to Barack Obama. Why is the title of the article “Sorry, Barack, You’ve Lost Iraq”? Shouldn’t it, more appropriately, be titled “Sorry, America, You’re Lost In Iraq“? Why just a brush over Hillary Clinton and two sentences for Obama?

Hirsh also refers to the “surge” as, of course, working; effectively turning a blind eye to the fact that we are paying folks that shoot at our troops not to shoot at our troops. We are doing that at a rate of $10 per day, each person. Is the surge working? How long are we going to do that? Will anyone take a pot-shot at our forces just so they can claim their $10 a day for not shooting? Hey in some countries, that could be their full time job! What kind of common sense do we have here?

With reference to the one remark about Barack Obama, perhaps Obama is reading up on the real news to see that the surge isn’t working , and he’s brilliant enough to realize that we can’t pay folks each day to not shoot at our troops, thus the reason for his continuing with Iraq proposals of bringing the troops home.

It seems opinion journalists want to hypnotize us into something. They choose a title that can continue to ring in our ears, while the substance of the article is confusing. I guess the logic is that we’ll get so confused about the garbage they are writing, that we’ll only remember the title. In this case, Barack has lost something, but we’re really not sure what it is.

The bottom line to this dribble, is this: Bush needs to be impeached before he further ruins this nation and we all need to pull out any money that has any way of reaching Newsweek.

Read thoroughly, choose carefully, vote wisely.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: