Should CNN be airing footage of Iraqi sniper attacks on U.S. soldiers?

[MannyIsGod]

You can blame the 'pacifcist left' all you want, but the blame is going to lie soley at the feet of the administration when history is done with things. There was plenty of bipartisan support in DC untill we went on a fools errands for WoMD, errr Deomcracy, errr (insert new reason here) in Iraq.

There is still plenty of across the board support for the war on terror, but very few people are left who see what we are currently doing in Iraq as furthering that goal. Do not mistake that for pacificism. I know its cute to sit back and say that anyone who is against the war in Iraq is obviously appeasing terrorists, but the fact remains that this administration keeps ing up in Iraq. Bush can't even get his own priorities straight, but then again he never was for staying the course, was he?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

That's a ing stupid argument. It's all the left's fault we can't do what needs to done? Why must it be partisan? Why can't we just acknowledge that we'll never understand these people which directly affects our ability to change them and their societal values? It's a hornet's nest, has always been a hornet's nest and, honestly, up to this point all we've done is whack it with a stick, IMO.

Save the Left/Right bull for the politicians and their agendas, which has nothing to do with what they say and everything to do with winning elections.

[Good 'N Plenty]

First, it's not a phony war, although that is a cute liberal saying these days. More power to your pansy asses.

Second, I'd sign up in a minute, even against my father's wishes, if I knew it meant my children wouldn't have to face a world wide conflict against radical Islam, which, like it or not, is where we're headed.

And we're not headed there because of what Pres. Bush has done since he got into office. We're headed there because it's the only path in the future of radical Islam, and one that we're going to have to fight whether we like it or not.

How can you call somebody a "pansy ass" yet you yourself are not willing to go fight yourself? Sounds pretty pansy ass to me.

Oh, and I'm no liberal.

[SA210]

Couple of things here...First, I'd like to point out that McCain's own son has joined the military.

Wow, you named one. Whoop-dee-doo! Is he in Iraq, by the way?

I guess you're probably criticizing Bush and Cheney though? Let's see, Bush has got two daughters who are far from soldier caliber unless you're looking for some PR reps. Cheney? Same for him. I think his *youngest* child is in the mid-30s, which is basically past enlistment.

But hey, call them out, you look like a bad ass to your liberal brethren for doing so, and you can beat off to your post at night.

Why did they go AWOL and get deferments when it was their time to fight for America?

As for me, like I said - you've got no problem wishing I abandon my life to go sign up, but I don't see you signing up for your beliefs. Just hiding behind the skirt of liberal criticism. Yay for you.

Actually, I don't want you to go fight and die, just pointing out the hypocrite that you are for wanting others to fight Your war. And I have many of my beliefs that I sign up for. I'm against this illegal phony war and I protest it everyday.

I'm not going to get into it on a public board, but my dad's a Vietnam vet, and he and I made a deal when I was very young about the military. As I respect him more than I do pretty much any other human being on the face of this earth, I'm going to live and honor his request. Not just about the military, but what he's asked of me as a person.

If you've got a problem with that, I don't really know what else to say other than off. And seeings you seem to think that you know how I feel about ... I'm not okay with anyone losing their lives over a phony war.

Really? But thousands are dying in this phony war, and you want it to stay the course. Do you understand that? Thousands of people have died needlessly. Thousands of innocent people on both sides, for what!

We are hated now by most of the world, with no support.

First, it's not a phony war, although that is a cute liberal saying these days. More power to your pansy asses.

More than half the country disagrees with you.

Second, I'd sign up in a minute, even against my father's wishes, if I knew it meant my children wouldn't have to face a world wide conflict against radical Islam, which, like it or not, is where we're headed.

Talk is cheap. I think our children could be in danger now because Your president overlooked North Korea, you know, the ones that actually do have WMD's.

And we're not headed there because of what Pres. Bush has done since he got into office.

Bush has hurt us severely and a great many others from what he has done. He needs to be impeached.

[Jimcs50]

Bush does not want the US populace to know what it going on in Iraq. This war is a huge mistake, and the more negative coverage that is out there just adds fuel to the anti war populace, which is growing every month. If Bush had his way, there would be no media anywhere near Iraq. He wants our heads to be in the sand, so he can run his war with impunity.

What is happening in Afghanistan now?

It is going back to the way it was 5 yrs ago, prior to 911. Why? Because Bush deemed that Iraq was more important, and he has almost cut our military to nothing but a token presense. Why? Because we can not make money in Afghanistan, unless we get into the Opium trade.

You Bush backers need to wake up, your naivete is quite disconcerting.

[clambake]

Back to the tape.

It's shows that we have no cohesive plan for success. It shows their capabilites are more fluid than ours. They can pick us off at will, and are. Bush has turned our kids into skeet, with their heads on a swivel.

Maybe if Bush and Cheney hadn't dodged the military they could have understood the consequences of their actions.

[SA210]

Maybe if Bush and Cheney hadn't dodged the military they could have understood the consequences of their actions.

Bingo!

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Damn liberal media.

CNN, NPR refuse ads for assassination film
Controversial film caused stir at Toronto Film Festival
Reuters

Updated: 2:17 p.m. ET Oct 24, 2006

LOS ANGELES - Two major U.S. news outlets, CNN and National Public Radio, will not air advertisements for a controversial movie depicting the assassination of President Bush, citing the film’s content, network spokeswomen said Tuesday.

The movie, “Death of a President,” caused a stir at the Toronto Film Festival in September where it debuted, and two major U.S. theater chains have declined to screen the movie when it debuts in the United States Friday.

“CNN has decided not to take the ad because of the extreme nature of the movie’s subject matter,” the cable television network said in a statement.

A spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the statement. The network has reported about the movie in recent months.

NPR will not run sponsor announcements to avoid any notion that it was reporting about the movie because it took the sponsorships, an NPR spokeswoman said.

“The movie is fairly likely to generate significant controversy and we’ll cover it as a news story,” said spokeswoman Andi Sporkin. “To take a sponsorship spot would raise questions and cause confusion” among listeners.

“Death of a President” is told like a do entary that tracks the political drama behind an investigation into Bush’s murder in October 2007.

The film, which was directed by Britain’s Gabriel Range, uses digital technology to depict Bush being gunned down, and its detractors have criticized the display of murdering a sitting president.

Its distributors at Newmarket Films say the film ultimately tries to send audiences an anti-violence message and Newmarket noted many major newspapers such as The New York Times and Washington Post have run ads.

“’Death of a President’ is the opposite of a call for violence,” Newmarket co-founder Chris Ball said in a statement. ”It’s a powerfully cautionary tale about the pernicious effects of violence.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. No. 1 theater chain Regal Entertainment Group and a smaller compe or, Cinemark USA, said they would not screen the movie.

About 100 local and art-house venues around the country will screen the film at its debut.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15402969/