Why is there no rush for the US to leave Afghanistan?

[casey_brick]

I have been wondering why there is such a public and political outcry to get out of Iraq but not Afghanistan.
Is the War in Afghanistan such an afterthought no one pays attenion to it? Or do the Amercian people really want the military to leave Iraq that badly?

[iron81]

1. Actual connection to 9-11
2. Much lower body count
3. Lower profile in the news
4. Smaller overall commitment in manpower and money
5. The American people really want the military to leave Iraq that badly.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Actual connection to 9-11
2. Much lower body count
3. Lower profile in the news
4. Smaller overall commitment in manpower and money
5. The American people really want the military to leave Iraq that badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

6.No political points for dems to score by pushing for it
7.Newscasts cant make Bush look as bad here.
8.For the most part it is successful and that would help Bush look good
9.Its not as easy to market doom and gloom in Afganistan

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Actual connection to 9-11
2. Much lower body count
3. Lower profile in the news
4. Smaller overall commitment in manpower and money
5. The American people really want the military to leave Iraq that badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

6.No political points for dems to score by pushing for it
7.Newscasts cant make Bush look as bad here.
8.For the most part it is successful and that would help Bush look good
9.Its not as easy to market doom and gloom in Afganistan

[/ QUOTE ]

6 is correct. The rest are very very wrong.

7. Yes the media could if they wanted to. Don't doubt the media's ability to spin.

8. Except for the taliban coming back into power.

9. Same as 8.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Actual connection to 9-11
2. Much lower body count
3. Lower profile in the news
4. Smaller overall commitment in manpower and money
5. The American people really want the military to leave Iraq that badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

6.No political points for dems to score by pushing for it
7.Newscasts cant make Bush look as bad here.
8.For the most part it is successful and that would help Bush look good
9.Its not as easy to market doom and gloom in Afganistan

[/ QUOTE ]

6 is correct. The rest are very very wrong.

7. Yes the media could if they wanted to. Don't doubt the media's ability to spin.

8. Except for the taliban coming back into power.

9. Same as 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note I said "as" bad ....and "for the most part" and "as easy".....the media is lazy...and will do what is quickest and easiest to sell. (note the big NY times magazine story from this past weekend) A female soldier claimed being raped twice in Iraq....they worked on this story for a year and printed it. (it turns out she was never even in Iraq) WTF? Any journalisnm 101 student would want to make sure of this fact wouldnt they?....What the hell...just run with the story....its anti Iraq war and thats all that matters.

[GoodCallYouWin]

The media isn't lazy, it's just ineffective.

[Dan.]

Hell. I'm as outspoken as anyone I've ever met against Iraq and I want the US to focus way more on Afghanistan, specifically related to the actual connection to 9/11 and reemergence of the Taliban there.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

Note I said "as" bad ....and "for the most part" and "as easy".....the media is lazy...and will do what is quickest and easiest to sell. (note the big NY times magazine story from this past weekend) A female soldier claimed being raped twice in Iraq....they worked on this story for a year and printed it. (it turns out she was never even in Iraq) WTF? Any journalisnm 101 student would want to make sure of this fact wouldnt they?....What the hell...just run with the story....its anti Iraq war and thats all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?
She never claimed she was raped in Iraq (Mississippi and Guam). Why don't you get your facts straight? It does seem likely she was never in Iraq, even though her personnel file includes a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, which is only awarded to troops who have served in a war zone. The magazine was remiss in checking out the story (apparently they checked at the last minute).
There were on the order of 30 others mentioned in the article. Care to refute all of their stories?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
The media isn't lazy, it's just ineffective.

[/ QUOTE ]

What used to be the most respected newspaper in America (NY Times) doesn't bother to check facts anymore....to me that is lazy and even more..it is dishonest.

Dan rathers "memo gate" again lazy and dishonest.

it seems the "factual" news pages have been turned into Opinion and Commentary pages. This is a joke...I don't think freedom of the press was intended to include lying, printing unverified items as fact, and outright bias.

i always thought a the purpose of a reporter was to report the facts of an event.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The media isn't lazy, it's just ineffective.

[/ QUOTE ]

What used to be the most respected newspaper in America (NY Times) doesn't bother to check facts anymore....to me that is lazy and even more..it is dishonest.

Dan rathers "memo gate" again lazy and dishonest.

it seems the "factual" news pages have been turned into Opinion and Commentary pages. This is a joke...I don't think freedom of the press was intended to include lying, printing unverified items as fact, and outright bias.

i always thought a the purpose of a reporter was to report the facts of an event.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're exactly right. The media accepts Bush's lies without question.