Victory By Any Other Name-- Dominant News Media Perpetuate Their Ideological Blindness on Iraq, Talk Radio, the Fairness Doctrine and Iran.·

By Jim Wrenn, 
Editor at PoliSat.Com. 
March 12, 2009-- 

March 24, 2011 Update:  

Since this article's original publication in March, 2009, ownership of "MotionBoxVideo" changed, as a result of which the video created for this article is no longer available (as indicated in the box for the MotionBoxVideo further down on the left side of this article.)  Therefore, I am providing the following link to enable visitors to view the video in its original "wmv" (Windows Movie Video) format.  Immediately below the link to the original version of the video titled "Victory by Any Other Name."  For the part of the video (which I admit is too long) pertinent to Libya, fast-forward to 7:03 and watch it to the end.:

http://PoliSat.Com/Video/VictoryByAnyOtherName-wmv-HQL.wmv .  

Why this update?  Partly because the MotionBoxVideo version is no longer available but also because many in the media are conveniently ignoring the reason for which Ghadaffy does NOT have nuclear weapons today:  Thanks to who?  To George W. Bush (and our troops AND Donald Rumsfeld, who made this point about Libya and Ghadaffy on Greta's program on March 23, 2011-- see here or here).  This same point was made a substantial way into the "Victory by Any Other Name" video (at 7:03 into the video), which is, I regret, probably much too long.  Watch it anyway.  Send your friends the link to this page (http://PoliSat.Com/VictoryByAnyOtherName.htm), which also replicates the text accompanying the video.  

End of update.-- Jim Wrenn, Editor.

Original article begins on line below:

            The excellent pundit named "Krauthammer,"  said Bush on Iraq was a doubt-slammer by plans he did tout to win in a rout by surging Petraeus as rout-hammer.  Correct are such Krauthammer views which also correctly construe the "MSM" view about Iraq "news":  Their view is "the 'good' news is 'no' news."  

            Of this, you may ask, "What's the moral?" 'Twas shown by cartoonist Bob Gorrell: How "MSM" views so plainly do skew the way they draw lessons or "morals."  Like Krauthammer, Gorrell dissects the ailment that plainly affects how "MSM views so plainly are skewed. The ailment? It's called "BHS."º¹   So, kudos that follow are served  to Charles and to Bob for their verve in showing how news the "MSM" skews and thus from reality swerves.

            Though "news" should state relevant facts,  the nature of facts they redact  shows how truth derides they way they decide  to tell what is "news" in Iraq.  We've long heard that "good" news ain't "news" in minds of reporters of news: That "bad" news is "news," but "good" news is viewed by many as "absence" of "news."  Yet often it's said that we should view the absence of news to be "good" news-- While waiting to learn the way fate has turned, we often say "no" news is "good" news.  The "saying" we've learned about "no" news  asserting there's "good" news in "no" news  applies in reverse  in ways quite perverse  where "con" news is "news" but not "pro" news.  

·  About  Archives (Old Archives)  Contact  Search PoliticalxRay/PoliSat.Com  News  Troops

            You ask where the views about "no" news  apply not to "con" news but "pro" news:   In "MSM" tracts   on "news" in Iraq "reporters" think "good" news is "no" news.   This best was depicted by whom? Bob Gorrell, whose classic cartoon  shows "MSM" hacks  think news in Iraq  ain't "news" absent gloom if not doom.  You ask what's Bob Gorrell's "dot-com"  displaying his 'toons with aplomb:  The internet "room" for Gorrell's cartoons 
is found at Creators-dot-Com.  The link there for Gorrell's cartoons:  "Political" types of "cartoons."   The next link to click is  "Gorrell," then pick  '08 for Day 20 of June. 

            It's clear what the "MSM" should do since news in Iraq's become "good" news:  For "no" news of gloom and "no" news of doom, report how the "no" news is "good news."  Instead, what they give us is faux news--  Their BHSº¹ gives them morose views of news that reflects the Dubya's success, which "good" news they deem to be "no" news.  "BHS" isn't new-- it has been known as standing for "Bush-Hating Syndrome," a Kostic Neurosis, if not a pshychosis, that stemmed from their Bushdidn'twindrome.  Despite "BHS," there is good news: That more folks are learning they should view the MSM news as "BHS" views to thus know their "no" news is "good" news.

            When balance they're seeking to get They know where there's balance to get: from talkers on radio, from Foxes in studios and sources and blogs on the 'Net.  So, now, how do lib'rals/progressives want gov'ment relieving their stresses from knowing folks listen to radio wisdom?  Make radio "talk" be "progressive." When watered-down talk is abandoned, 'twould leave NPR as the "balance"-- A chamber that echoes the same leftist ethos the MSM preaches as "balanced."  But if they attempt such a plan they'll learn what they won't understand 'til covered they've been unpleasantly when political stuff hits the fan.  As more and more people divine that practically all of the time MSM is "progressive," they'll learn Limbaugh's message:  "Talk Radio IS 'equal time.'"  

            To counter progressivist proxies in MSM news requires moxie so skews folks detect from balance they get from radio, bloggers and Foxes.  They're learning the "surge" of Petraeus is vanquishing those who would slay us though "BHS" views as MSM "news" consistently claimed it would fail us.  They're learning the claims by elitists that all in Iraq would be bleakest unless we'd retreat exposed the elites as blindly naive self-defeatists.  Elections Iraq has just run, show what has, no doubt, now begun:   That freedom's redoubt  yields terrorists' rout  as fruits of the vict'ry we've won.  

            Yet critics of Bush remain blind  to much that such vict'ry defines:    Success in Iraq did  more than just knock  Saddam from the scene for all time.   To show the full breadth of success from toppling Saddam, I digress by journeying back in time a few tracks for context preceding success.  'Twas not fully known when the mission began to prevent Saddam's fission that Khan was a schooler of Libya's ruler progressing towards bombs using fission.  Soon after the launch of the mission for ending Saddam's hopes for fission, it seemed that Hussein again might remain in power despite Dubya's mission.  And when, after statues were toppled, Saddam, whose regime appeared hobbled, eluded escape, Qadhaffi had faith Saddam would undo being toppled.  But later, we captured Hussein which thereupon made it quite plain although he remained alive it was plain he'd never hold power again.  

            And more was attained than preemption of hopes by Saddam to make fission, but strident Bush critics-- with views thus constricted-- ignore the full fruits of this mission.   What critics ignore, I explain:   On news that we'd captured Hussein  Qadhafi confessed  (from fear he'd be next):   "From working on Nukes I'll refrain."  Qadhafi then showed to the West  his progress towards nukes he could test  and also agreed  his program could be   removed and destroyed by the West.

            But what would have happened, alas,  if Dubya had taken a pass  on toppling Hussein?   Not hard to explain,  if first we go Back to the Past:   His critics' re-writings of hist'ry (accounting with one-sided entries) with cruxes excluded can best be refuted by pairing correlative entries.  This trip to the past will affix
to hist'ry what critics had picked as what should be done, then forward time's run to show what would now be transfixed.  Including each crux then in play
yields "what would've happened" displays had critics prevailed.  For that, I unveil:   "Rewind, then Rewrite, then Replay":  

            If critics the Dubya had heeded  by letting Saddam remain seated  in power, Saddam  would now have The Bomb  with likewise Qadhafi proceeding.  And chances are zip, zero, none  Iran would stop nuke-work begun  to counter Saddam's  acquiring The Bomb--   Indeed, they'd blame us for his Bomb.  And Gore would by now have hurled claims  at Dubya which would be the same  as thoseº² that Gore pushed  against "Daddy" Bush  for NOT having toppled Hussein.  You doubt Gore would stoop to such shame?  Search "WrennCom" plus "GoreOnHussein" plus "PersianGulfWar" for rantings of Gore at Bush 41 re Hussein.  'Twas after the Persian Gulf War that Candidate, Albert A. Gore, trashed Bush 41 for what left undone?  Deposing Hussein in that war.  Thus, Gore and the Left would now claim:   "If Dubya had toppled Hussein,  the folks in Iran  would not want The Bomb," for which they on Bush would heap blame. 

            To undo this alternate future,  again we go back and un-suture  such alternate way  for Hist'ry to play,  and then we come Back to the Future.  Though still we have grounds for alarm:   Korea up North and Iran  want Nukes to make threats, Bush ended such threats  in Libya and in Iraq.  Regarding Ill Jung there's no doubt  our chance to deter him without  the six-party framework  for sanctions and State-work  would shrink, leaving force less in doubt. 

            In contrast, remember, Iran,  which started pursuit of a Bomb  believing Saddam  would make his own Bomb,  continues long after he's gone.  So, why do they still want The Bomb?   Because they expect having Bombs  would give them more moxie,  so warfare by proxy  they'd win without fear of our arms.  The scope of Iran's "proxy-rama"? Hezbollah's in Lebanon, Hamas is in Gaza, the Sadrists they backed inside of Iraq, and agents sent east as AfPakers.  From whom did the term "AfPak" come? 'Twas coined by reporter, Mike Yon describing in short(ened)-hand Afghanistan/Pakistan at "MichaelYon-OnLine" then ".Com".

            And also, it's worth not forgettin' that some of their leaders are bettin' Iran has been given by Allah the mission of launching the great Armageddon.  Iranian leadership knows what few in America know:   They don't need to land a Nuke on our lands to deal us a crippling blow.   Intelligence experts believe Iranian leaders conceive since now they've transported a rocket to orbit, against us they'll wield "E-M-P."  What IS "E-M-P"? I'll divulge: Electro-Magnetic (type) Pulse-- Intense radiation from Nuke-detonation which fries micro-circuits in bulk.  For folks not aware of this power to learn about E M P power, go "WrennCom.Com
/EMPBomb" then ".htm" in your browser.

            Like suicide bombers, such leaders  cannot be deterred by our leaders  assuring Iran  its use of The Bomb  would end both Iran and its leaders.  So, what in Iran is most needed?   Replacement of suicide leaders  by folks in Iran  saying "No" to The Bomb  and "Yes" to Iraqi-like leaders. 

            Iraqis are struggling, we know, but clearly they're starting to show intolerance toward the terrorist hordes so seeds sowed for freedom can grow.  Elections Iraq has just run,  show what has, no doubt, now begun:   That freedom's redoubt  yields terrorists' rout  as fruits of the vict'ry we've won.    Iraq has now shown to the world  where liberty's flag is unfurled  with tolerance touted,  fanatics are routed,  and peace fills that part of the world.

            In summ'ry, the gist of the Good News the "MSM" deems to be "No News": That toppling Hussein let tolerance reign and reined-in Qadhafi is "Good News."  Moreover, what's shown above-left  reveals what we'd face if the Left's  proposals had won  post 2001:  'Twould double the risks Dubya left.   Instead, what's displayed above right,  though still quite a dangerous plight,  makes clear Bush reduced  from four down to two  the sources for nuclear fights. 

            Though Bush by the Left has been pilloried, in hist'ry, his real valedictory as Bush the Defeater of Leftist Appeasers will be his enabling our victory.  To whom are our thanks most deserving  for steadfast, courageous, unswerving  fidelity to  what freedom can do?  Both Bush and our troops bravely serving.

            I finally close with a note in case as you read what I wrote you deemed the word usage and syntax effusive and think that good English I smote.  Perhaps you've detected these lines are written in rhythm and rhyme-- If so, cursor-down, 'cause there will be found these verses in stanzas and lines.

The excellent pundit named "Krauthammer," 
said Bush on Iraq was a doubt-slammer
by plans he did tout
to win in a rout
by surging Petraeus as rout-hammer.

Correct are such Krauthammer views
which also correctly construe
the "MSM" view
about Iraq "news":
Their view is "the 'good' news is 'no' news."

Of this, you may ask, "What's the moral?"
'Twas shown by cartoonist Bob Gorrell:
How "MSM" views
so plainly do skew
the way they draw lessons or "morals."

Like Krauthammer, Gorrell dissects
the ailment that plainly affects
how "MSM views
so plainly are skewed.
The ailment? It's called "BHS."º¹  

So, kudos that follow are served 
to Charles and to Bob for their verve
in showing how news
the "MSM" skews
and thus from reality swerves.

Though "news" should state relevant facts, 
the nature of facts they redact 
shows how truth derides
they way they decide 
to tell what is "news" in Iraq.

We've long heard that "good" news ain't "news"
in minds of reporters of news:
That "bad" news is "news,"
but "good" news is viewed
by many as "absence" of "news."

Yet often it's said that we should view
the absence of news to be "good" news--
While waiting to learn
the way fate has turned,
we often say "no" news is "good" news.

The "saying" we've learned about "no" news 
asserting there's "good" news in "no" news 
applies in reverse 
in ways quite perverse 
where "con" news is "news" but not "pro" news.  

You ask where the views about "no" news  
apply not to "con" news but "pro" news:   
In "MSM" tracts  
on "news" in Iraq  
"reporters" think "good" news is "no" news. 

This best was depicted by whom?
Bob Gorrell, whose classic cartoon 
shows "MSM" hacks 
think news in Iraq 
ain't "news" absent gloom if not doom. 

You ask what's Bob Gorrell's "dot-com"   
displaying his 'toons with aplomb: 
The internet "room" 
for Gorrell's cartoons 
is found at Creators-dot-Com.  

The link there for Gorrell's cartoons: 
"Political" types of "cartoons." 
The next link to click is 
"Gorrell," then pick 
'08 for Day 20 of June. 

It's clear what the "MSM" should do
since news in Iraq's become "good" news: 
For "no" news of gloom
and "no" news of doom,
report how the "no" news is "good news."

Instead, what they give us is faux news--
Their BHSº¹ gives them morose views
of news that reflects
the Dubya's success,
which "good" news they deem to be "no" news.

"BHS" isn't new-- it has been known
as standing for "Bush-Hating Syndrome,"
a Kostic Neurosis,
if not a pshychosis,
that stemmed from their Bushdidn'twindrome.

Despite "BHS," there is good news:
That more folks are learning they should view
the MSM news
as "BHS" views
to thus know their "no" news is "good" news.

When balance they're seeking to get
They know where there's balance to get:
from talkers on radio,
from Foxes in studios
and sources and blogs on the 'Net.

So, now, how do lib'rals/progressives
want gov'ment relieving their stresses
from knowing folks listen
to radio wisdom?
Make radio "talk" be "progressive"

When watered-down talk is abandoned,
'twould leave NPR as the "balance"--
A chamber that echoes
the same leftist ethos
the MSM preaches as "balanced."

But if they attempt such a plan
they'll learn what they won't understand
'til covered they've been
unpleasantly when
political stuff hits the fan.

As more and more people divine
that practically all of the time
MSM is "progressive,"
they'll learn Limbaugh's message:
"Talk Radio IS 'equal time.'"

To counter progressivist proxies
in MSM news requires moxie
so skews folks detect
from balance they get
from radio, bloggers and Foxes.

They're learning the "surge" of Petraeus
is vanquishing those who would slay us
though "BHS" views
as MSM "news"
consistently claimed it would fail us.

They're learning the claims by elitists
that all in Iraq would be bleakest
unless we'd retreat
exposed the elites
as blindly naive self-defeatists.

Elections Iraq has just run, 
show what has, no doubt, now begun:  
That freedom's redoubt 
yields terrorists' rout 
as fruits of the vict'ry we've won.  

Yet critics of Bush remain blind 
to much that such vict'ry defines:   
Success in Iraq did 
more than just knock 
Saddam from the scene for all time. 

To show the full breadth of success
from toppling Saddam, I digress
by journeying back
in time a few tracks
for context preceding success.

'Twas not fully known when the mission
began to prevent Saddam's fission
that Khan was a schooler
of Libya's ruler
progressing towards bombs using fission.

Soon after the launch of the mission
for ending Saddam's hopes for fission,
it seemed that Hussein
again might remain
in power despite Dubya's mission.

And when, after statues were toppled,
Saddam, whose regime appeared hobbled,
eluded escape,
Qadhaffi had faith
Saddam would undo being toppled.

But later, we captured Hussein
which thereupon made it quite plain
although he remained
alive it was plain
he'd never hold power again.

And more was attained than preemption
of hopes by Saddam to make fission,
but strident Bush critics--
with views thus constricted--
ignore the full fruits of this mission.

What critics ignore, I explain:  
On news that we'd captured Hussein 
Qadhafi confessed 
(from fear he'd be next):  
"From working on Nukes I'll refrain."

Qadhafi then showed to the West 
his progress towards nukes he could test 
and also agreed 
his program could be  
removed and destroyed by the West.

But what would have happened, alas, 
if Dubya had taken a pass 
on toppling Hussein?  
Not hard to explain, 
if first we go Back to the Past:  

His critics' re-writings of hist'ry
(accounting with one-sided entries)
with cruxes excluded
can best be refuted
by pairing correlative entries.

This trip to the past will affix
to hist'ry what critics had picked
as what should be done,
then forward time's run
to show what would now be transfixed.

Including each crux then in play
yields "what would've happened" displays
had critics prevailed.
For that, I unveil:
"Rewind, then Rewrite, then Replay."

If critics the Dubya had heeded 
by letting Saddam remain seated 
in power, Saddam 
would now have The Bomb 
with likewise Qadhafi proceeding.

And chances are zip, zero, none 
Iran would stop nuke-work begun 
to counter Saddam's 
acquiring The Bomb--  
Indeed, they'd blame us for his Bomb.

And Gore would by now have hurled claims 
at Dubya which would be the same 
as thoseº² that Gore pushed 
against "Daddy" Bush 
for NOT having toppled Hussein.

You doubt Gore would stoop to such shame?
Search "WrennCom" plus "GoreOnHussein"
plus "PersianGulfWar" 
for rantings of Gore
at Bush 41 re Hussein.

'Twas after the Persian Gulf War
that Candidate, Albert A. Gore,
trashed Bush 41
for what left undone?
Deposing Hussein in that war. 

Thus, Gore and the Left would now claim:  
If Dubya had toppled Hussein, 
the folks in Iran 
would not want The Bomb, 
for which they on Bush would heap blame.

To undo this alternate future, 
again we go back and un-suture 
such alternate way 
for Hist'ry to play, 
and then we come Back to the Future.

Though still we have grounds for alarm:
Korea up North and Iran 
want Nukes to make threats,
Bush ended such threats 
in Libya and in Iraq.

Regarding Ill Jung there's no doubt 
our chance to deter him without 
the six-party framework 
for sanctions and State-work 
would shrink, leaving force less in doubt.

In contrast, remember, Iran, 
which started pursuit of a Bomb 
believing Saddam 
would make his own Bomb, 
continues long after he's gone.

So, why do they still want The Bomb?  
Because they expect having Bombs 
would give them more moxie, 
so warfare by proxy 
they'd win without fear of our arms.

The scope of Iran's "proxy-rama"?
Hezbollah's in Lebanon, Hamas is in Gaza,
the Sadrists they backed
inside of Iraq,
and agents sent east as AfPakers.

From whom did the term "AfPak" come?
'Twas coined by reporter, Mike Yon
describing in short(ened)-hand
Afghanistan/Pakistan
at "MichaelYon-OnLine" then ".Com"  ·

And also, it's worth not forgettin' 
that some of their leaders are bettin' 
Iran has been given 
by Allah the mission 
of launching the great Armageddon.

Iranian leadership knows
what few in America know:
They don't need to land
a Nuke on our lands
to deal us a crippling blow.

Intelligence experts believe
Iranian leaders conceive
since now they've transported
a rocket to orbit,
against us they'll wield "E-M-P."

What IS "E-M-P"? I'll divulge:
Electro-Magnetic (type) Pulse--
Intense radiation
from Nuke-detonation
which fries micro-circuits in bulk.

For folks not aware of this power
to learn about E M P power,
go "WrennCom.Com
/EMPBomb" 
then ".htm" in your browser.

Like suicide bombers, such leaders 
cannot be deterred by our leaders 
assuring Iran 
its use of The Bomb 
would end both Iran and its leaders.

So, what in Iran is most needed?  
Replacement of suicide leaders 
by folks in Iran 
saying "No" to The Bomb 
and "Yes" to Iraqi-like leaders.

Iraqis are struggling, we know,
but clearly they're starting to show
intolerance toward
the terrorist hordes
so seeds sowed for freedom can grow.

Elections Iraq has just run, 
show what has, no doubt, now begun:  
That freedom's redoubt 
yields terrorists' rout 
as fruits of the vict'ry we've won.  

Iraq has now shown to the world 
where liberty's flag is unfurled 
with tolerance touted, 
fanatics are routed, 
and peace fills that part of the world.

In summ'ry, the gist of the Good News
the "MSM" deems to be "No News":
That toppling Hussein
let tolerance reign
and reined-in Qadhafi is "Good News."

Moreover, what's shown above-left 
reveals what we'd face if the Left's 
proposals had won 
post 2001: 
'Twould double the risks Dubya left.

Instead, what's displayed above right, 
though still quite a dangerous plight, 
makes clear Bush reduced 
from four down to two 
the sources for nuclear fights.

Though Bush by the Left has been pilloried,
in hist'ry, his real valedictory
as Bush the Defeater
of Leftist Appeasers
will be his enabling our victory.

To whom are our thanks most deserving 
for steadfast, courageous, unswerving 
fidelity to 
what freedom can do? 
Both Bush and our troops bravely serving.  

--Jim Wrenn, Editor, PoliSat.Com.

Permanent links to this installment: 

http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/Archives2009/du20y09m03d12-01.htm 

or

http://PoliSat.Com/VictoryByAnyOtherName.htm .

end.

·  About  Archives (Old Archives)  Contact  Search PoliticalxRay/PoliSat.Com  News  Troops