In a continuing theme from the MSM, their distortions, half truths and in some cases downright lies, AP comes out with this ridiculous piece about Iraq having lasted longer than WWII.
The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in the war that President Bush's father fought in, World War II. As of Sunday, the conflict in Iraq has raged for three years and just over eight months.
In this little gem, they prove yet again how they consider telling half the story to be "news" and consider it reporting.
As RedState so elequently points out:
And yes, by that metric, Iraq has been a greater conflict than WWII in that it has taken more time. But what does this tell us? Is it the only meaningful point of comparison between these two conflicts? How about an alternative metric to put this somber "milestone" in perspective? Such as the number of US casualties?
According to the Department of Defense (click on "Casualty Reports" to download the PDF), we have lost 2303 of our best and brightest to combat in Iraq to date--which is for me a far more tangible cost to our nation than the number of days we've been there. How does that stack up against WWII? The battle death tally for WWII was 292,131. More than a quarter of a million. 292,131. It's a staggering number, especially when you remember that the total population of the United States was less than half than it is now in 1941 at roughly 132 million. The AP might also consider that during the period we were involved in WWII, we lost servicemen at the rate of 6,639 per month. Per month. I'm sorry, I keep repeating myself, but as someone who did not live through that war, the numbers are so large that they become abstract and I'm having trouble making them real. Maybe that's why the AP chooses to harp on the number of days we've been in Iraq in comparison to WWII. We can all comprehend three years and eight months. We can remember where we were in May, 2003 and mark the passage of time. It's a little more challenging to grasp that over that same time span during WWII, we suffered casualties at more than 100% the rate we have in Iraq. 2303 x 100= 230,300. We're still 60,000 short of our losses in WWII. 60,000. I can hardly wrap my brain around it.
Of course AP doesn't think the number of casualties should matter as much as the number of days.
It is a great example though of how the media prefers to to influence peoples thinking without giving all the facts. The headlines and the half truths work with some, those that have no brains of their own and cannot do a search to ask the relevant questions.... unless those people think the lives lost is irrevelant compared to the number of days the conflict lasts.
Macsmind points out another interesting point:
First, WWII would have went on a lot longer if we hadn’t nuked Japan. I guess that would be a solution, we could nuke Syria, Iran, North Korea, France, the offices of the Daily Kos and perhaps that might stop the war.
Gateway Pundit points out another one of those pesky little things like facts.
Of course, it the AP were honest, it took the US about a month to take the country out of control of Saddam Hussein. It also took the US a few extra years to get a Constitution up and running in Japan, Germany, etc. And, in case they missed it, there are still troops in Germany and Okinawa- hence, the Murtha Plan.
I once again point out that the MSM has seen to it that their main job these days is to spread enemy propaganda, either outright, or by telling half truths to make a point that is easily debunked for those that actually care about the "truth".
Keep up with the info on where the so called "reporters" are getting their news from over at Flopping Aces.