Antiwar Reporting Helps U.S. Enemies

[jimpeel]

Even though this is a study conducted at an admittedly liberal unversity it all must be a lie because a conservative leaning website reported it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337656,00.html

Study: Antiwar Reporting Helps U.S. Enemies
Thursday, March 13, 2008

Insurgents in Iraq get a boost from coverage in the news media that shows support for troop withdrawals from the war torn country, according to a study.

Two Harvard University economists found that insurgent groups are responsive to "antiresolve" statements in the media.

"It shows that the various insurgent groups do respond to incentives and shows that a successful counter insurgency strategy should take that reality into account," Jonathan Monten, a co-author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, told US News and World Report.

Insurgent attacks increased between 7 and 10 percent immediately after a spike in "antiresolve" statements in the media, according to the findings.

The study was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Baghdad was excluded from the study and it did not review overall cost and public debate.

Click here for more coverage from US News and World Report.

 

[Gonz]

All I can say is....


DUH!

 

[spike]

Censor the media and the majority of the country that realize Iraq is a farce!

 

[jimpeel]

Censor the media and the majority of the country that realize Iraq is a farce!

It wasn't a farce to the people who were being pushed off of tall buildings by Saddam's henchmen. I guess you missed the recant news of still one more mass grave being found over there.

 

[spike]

Yes, now there's no violence in Iraq.

 

[jimpeel]

Yes, now there's no violence in Iraq.

Yes, just as there is no violence in America.

 

[Cerise]

It all boils down to the fact that Booosh stole the election, they've never forgiven him, and they will do whatever it takes to bring him down--even if it means fueling the anti-war left to the point of anarchy, undermining our troop's moral by saying that they yield no results, and giving aid and comfort to our enemy through headlines and breathless reports of how many Americans are killed and how the war is lost and how many terrorists are tortured and how many Iraqi citizens are dead. When our enemy views our media reports they think they are winning, and they try harder.

 

[spike]

Yes, just as there is no violence in America.

yes, it's very similar to violence in America.

 

[2minkey]

sheep come in all shapes, sizes, and scents. the macho warrior ones are some of the most amusing.

 

[jimpeel]

sheep come in all shapes, sizes, and scents. the macho warrior ones are some of the most amusing.

If it weren't for the "macho warrior ones" you would be speaking German or you would have never been born after the Japanese worked your grandparents into an early grave in the work camps.

 

[2minkey]

no, the folks that fought in world war 2 did not need to engage in the macho bullshit like today's couch commandos do. they actually did something.

 

[jimpeel]

no, the folks that fought in world war 2 did not need to engage in the macho bullshit like today's couch commandos do. they actually did something.

Then those who fought the war at home, in the factories building aircraft, ships, and materiel were simply "couch commandos" because they didn't actually "do something"?

 

[Cerise]

And the media of the WW2 era clearly backed the war effort and wrote headlines that screamed in bold caps that they supported America and its' Allies.

The couch commandos today are in part a reaction to the weak, limp-dicked,
feckless antiwar protesters who would trash this great country.

 

[2minkey]

Then those who fought the war at home, in the factories building aircraft, ships, and materiel were simply "couch commandos" because they didn't actually "do something"?

actually, jim, i've been spending my spare time pooping on the graves of those that helped support the war effort back home.

 

[2minkey]

The couch commandos today are in part a reaction to the weak, limp-dicked,
feckless antiwar protesters who would trash this great country.

i doubt either the commandos or their counterparts on the other side of the aisle could maintain a proper erection. both are fuckheads.

 

[Gonz]

The couch commandos today are in part a reaction to the weak, limp-dicked,
feckless antiwar protesters who would trash this great country.

Fucking A right

 

[spike]

Back in reality it's those linp dicked couch commandos who unthinkingly support invading non threat countries and wasting massive amounts of tax payer monies in a farce based on lies that are trashing this country.

 

[2minkey]

yeah gotta wonder what has emboldened our enemies more, the war or the protesters. hmmm doesn't seem like a tough question to me.

 

[Gonz]

yeah gotta wonder what has emboldened our enemies more, the war or the protesters. hmmm doesn't seem like a tough question to me.

I agree minkey. The protesters should be shot as traitors.

 

[jimpeel]

Back in reality it's those linp dicked couch commandos who unthinkingly support invading non threat countries and wasting massive amounts of tax payer monies in a farce based on lies that are trashing this country.

Ah, yes, the ol' "Bush lied. People died." bullshit again.

You have obviously never read the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and, if history is any indicator, you never will; because it dashes your preconceived beliefs.

I'll make it easy for you though.

First, go HERE and read the part that says

"On September 24, 2002 the British Government published a White Paper on Iraq's WMD stating, "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Simply click on THIS LINK and scroll down to #499 which reads:

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

Also note this:

500. We also note that, because the intelligence evidence was inconclusive, neither the Government’s dossier nor the Prime Minister went on to say that a deal between the Governments of Iraq and Niger for the supply of uranium had been signed, or uranium shipped.

This would be the part where you scream "AHA! I got you Peel!" at your computer screen; but after you finish wiping the spittle from the screen, read this:

501. We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries:

Ah, you are rubbing you hands together like a Boy Scout trying to light a campfire chanting "Bush lied! Bush lied! Bush lied!" But read on.

The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium to Iraq between 1999 and 2001. The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger,both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part,Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger,and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries,including Niger, in February 1999,which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger,and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis,the IAEA has concluded,with the concurrence of outside experts,that these documents,which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.
[IAEA GOV/INF/2003/10 Annex of 7 March 2003]

Ah, yes, the suspense grows. You got me now! "Bush lied, Peel!"

502. We have asked the IAEA what were their grounds for concluding that the visit paid by an Iraqi official to Africa was not for the purpose of acquiring uranium. The IAEA said:

. . . the Director General explained in his report dated 7 March 2004 [sic] to the UN Security Council that Iraq ”described the visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries,including Niger, in February 1999,which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports”. On a number of occasions in early 2003, including in a letter dated 1 February 2003,the IAEA requested Iraq to provide details of all meetings held between Iraqi officials and officials from Niger around the year 2000. The Director of Iraq’s National Monitoring Directorate responded in a letter of 7 February 2003 to the Director of the IAEA’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office. (It should be noted that at the time of Iraq’s response Iraq had not been provided by the IAEA with any details contained in documents alleging the existence of a uranium contract.)

The Iraqi response referred to above explained that,on 8 February 1999, Mr. Wissam Al Zahawie,Iraq’s then Ambassador to the Holy See,as part of a trip to four African countries,visited Niger as an envoy of the then President of Iraq to Mr. Ibrahim Bare, the then President of Niger,in order to deliver an official invitation for a visit to Iraq, planned for 20 to 30 April 1999. (N.B. Mr. Bare passed away on 9 April 1999.) According to the Iraqi information,no such presidential visit from Niger to Iraq took place before 2003.

The Iraqi authorities provided the IAEA with excerpts from Mr. Al Zahawie’s travel report to Niger. These excerpts support the above explanation by the Ambassador regarding the purpose of his visit to Niger and do not contain any references to discussions about uranium supply from Niger.

In order to further clarify the matter,the IAEA interviewed Mr. Al Zahawie on 12 February 2003. The information provided by the Ambassador about details about his 1999 trip to Africa also supported the information obtained previously by the 124 Agency on this visit. The demeanour of the Ambassador and the general tone of the interview did not suggest that he was under particular pressure to hide or fabricate information.

Notwithstanding the information summarized above,and in view of the fact that the IAEA so far has not obtained any other related information than the forged documents,the IAEA is not in the position to demonstrate that Iraq never sought to import uranium in the past. This is the reason why the IAEA only concluded that it had ”no indication that Iraq attempted to import uranium since 1990” but it would ”follow up any additional evidence,if it emerges,relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials”. So far no such additional information has been obtained by the Agency.[/B]

Oh, oh ...

503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

Aw, shit! Bush didn't lie after all! That bastard!