CBC's Civilian Casualties: Not Obama's Fault!

They never change do they? Same old hard left shysters as always...

Someone once said, "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."

Change! At least in the headlines.

I see the difference here, it's in the number of fatalities. See, Bush killed 76, Obama only killed 27!

I assume the cutoff point for moral outrage is somewhere around thirty, so Bush should have ordered three air strikes that killed about 25.3 per strike, then the MSM would have said nothing.

CBC, all the bs that's fit to spew.

The difference is one is a U.S. led coalition and the other is NATO. bambam isn't head of NATO.

I gotta give the lefties credit. Just reading the comments on the CBC story they seem genuinely upset at the continuation of war regardless of who is conducting it and how the LSM is covering it. Although only a maroon can believe in the "make love not war" mantra, I can still respect them for putting politics aside and shooting from the hip(PTP).

Speedy says "The difference is one is a U.S. led coalition and the other is NATO. bambam isn't head of NATO."

Well, that's not entirely accurate. The first headline (Bush) is from August 22, 2008. NATO assumed control of ISAF in 2003 so it was a NATO mission long before that 2008 date and Bush wasn't head of NATO in 2008 either.

Morals are relative & as we see with Our HRC's. So would be their take on politics. Like Islamic Tikkyra, You can lie or pretend to be moderate . Do the exact opposite to fool the population while undermining the Polity for Sharia Law. As long as Marxism is forced on us all. Truth itself is relative.
To bad dying & such blows their game about absolutes.
JMO

"For liberals, history starts every morning"

This was all predicted as far back as 2004 (at least). How many of us were saying that when the shoe was on the other foot the favored would not be called to task, even for the very same things that had them howling over Bush?

.... The MSM are not just idiots ... they are predictable idiots.

Always wrong.

How do we know that the casualties were civilian? The MSM have shown no compunction about lying, in the past or in the present.
Furthermore, there is a major question as to how they know which are civilians and which are military, and in what sense the "military" are military.

John I was referring to the headlines. US led and NATO airstrike.

John Lewis makes an excellant point.
On one hand there are the obvious fabrications by lefties such as the debunked British Lancett estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq....Green Helmit Guy in Lebannon......
Then there is the genuine practical difficulty of differentiating between dead human shields and dead terrorists in civilian garb.

Funny how T, Dawg and the other idiots never show up on threads like this, isn't it? NOTHING being done any different from the way it was done under Bushitler, not one damn thing, but are the idiots upset? No. Not a bit.

We seeeeeee you, idiots.

The MSM would argue that there's no difference, that viewers watching the news know that it's an American-led mission and that Obama is the current president. But there is a difference, which explains the consitency with which it happens. It has a conditioning effect on viewers. If you hear "Bush" often enough in negative stories, it shapes your view. Same with the CBC's use of "Harper gov't" and "Conservative gov't" when they run a negative report, or my favourite -- the "Harper Conservative gov't". As opposed to the Harper Liberal gov't? Clearly MSM wanting to tarnish by the PM by name and the party brand. But when it's funding for Haiti or something that's positive, it's generically "the gov't" or "the feds" or, and this is another favourite, "Ottawa". For example, "Ottawa will be increasing it's funding for...." I laugh at that one. Is it the people of Ottawa boosting funding? Maybe city council.

Bottom line, it does condition less informed people who all they know is that when they hear Harper or conservative mentioned, it's not good feelings they have. And aren't those the ones that comprise a large part of the undecided vote? And how many close races are there? Liberals prey on those Canadians. And the CBC's bias and omissions help them in doing just that.

I believe the favourite at CBCpravda is "the Harper regime"

usually preceeded by "critics say" or "Liberals say" or "Opposition leader says" or "Ignatieff declares"

"To the left, it would appear, it's totally cool as long as we're not the ones doing it." ??? I checked the post again, and yes, that was a quote from Kate herself??? In fact, it is the Right, it would appear, that thinks it's totally cool as long as we're not the ones doing it. ( http://fairwhistleblower.ca/cases/richard_colvin ) It begs the question, is it Kate that is drinking the "Charles Adler Kool-Aid", or Charles that is drinking the "Small Dead Animals Kool-Aid"??? Gone is reason and responsibility. Missing in action are the principals and values of truth, justice and transparency. At the end of the day the Harper Conservatives at best resemble the obtuse - supporters of an ideology of the enemy that we are currently at war with.

Frank,

I noticed your other whistleblower/Richard Colvin post before it got removed. Do you think either fairwhistleblower or the CBC will report fairly on the most massive fraud attempt in the history of man (AGW, in case you are not sure) or is the agenda of the both like minded organisations to attack the Harper government? Just curious.

Time for another complaint to the Ombudsman - which will again go unanswered.

I heard the same thing this morning on NPR. What a treat to hear that the forces in Afghanistan are NATO forces or multinational forces or anything but American led forces. It sure wasn't that way when Bush was in office. The liberals have purchased the media and that includes the taxpayer owned media. I knew that something was wrong when they fired Bob Edwards for not getting Kerry elected and replaced him with Steve Inskeep. Well they managed to get their man in office and now are making sure he stays there. Communist bastards.

Well, to be fair, it's hard to "rage against the machine" once you're part of the machine.

I think more than a few "progressive" "anti-Establishment" supporters of President Obama's candidacy are confused by their new and uncomfortable status as the Establishment.