Just like any typical left-wing bunch of reptiles the NBC chicken is loose lets give the orgional peacock a club and let him beat it to a pancake

They are free to air what they want, or to not air what they don't, withing the FCC guidlines. More power to them.
It's only censorship when the government does it. Or it's the Dixie Chicks.
Then it is evil, and must be stopped.

...And we're free to call them out for what they won't air. Just like the Dixie Chicks: If that's how you want to be, fine, but be prepared for the fall out. That's what happens when you're a public figure or company.

Good for CNBC & MSNBC. These sleazy jingoistic ads are extreme emotional plugs to fan the flames for more war.

The stupid war-hugging P.O.S. Ari Fleischer couldn't even provide the name of the double-amputee who appears in one of these ads that he was hawking on MSNBC last week.

Fleischer, the war pig, could use this poor soldier to connect 9/11 w/ Fleischer's ongoing effort to produce more double-amputees, but he didn't give enough of a shit to even know the soldier's name. What a conniving & manipulative sack of puss.

Freedomlies, too bad you didn't have the same hatred and anger for the enemy.

Thank you for your astute analysis, Master Fries. If only it was written in a newspaper, then I could use it for what it's worth. Remember Sheryl Crowe says only one sheet, but she never specified the size of that sheet.

FastFood do you ever have a sane thought? You sound more like leeward ever comment. In other words a nut. Common sense (which you seem not to possess) knows that NBC is putting forth an agend for the left.

FF wants to censor Freedom Watch and writes it in a purposefully traitorous manner.

And reading the comment above, I think I've just about had it with this motherfr. I make a formal request to Wizbang to ban this a**hole permanently from here.

FreedomFries = NeedTherapyNow!

MSNBC AND CNBC are still being broadcast??????
Does anyone ever watch them????
If so, Why????

I have seen/heard two ads. One mentioned above by FF and one on the radio. In both cases the ads linked Iraq and 9-11.

If you want to argue that we should stay in Iraq, then do so without lying about the Iraqi/9-11 link.

Barney, you're an embarassment to thinking people everywhere. Thank God none associate with you.

As for the story, it rienforces my belief in boycotts. For the life of me, I don't get why so many on my side continue to patronize truth hating anti-American orgs. like MSLSD,CNBS, Le NY Crimes etc., and ALSO discourage people from boycotting. It's like, "Honey, I know you're putting arsenic in the pasta, but it sure does taste good." We ought to be encouraging people to infiltrate these culture of death orgs. so they can be outed for the scum that they are. Remember the big "expose" of Food Lion ? Or GM ? Or a hundred other American companies ? I'd love to see the day when we got old Pinchy boy on youtube ranting about what a bunch of rubes we are for buying our own destruction. But then again, Kerry did get 56 million votes even AFTER we all knew the truth about him....If anyone wants me I'll be stocking up on TP and canned goods in my bunker.

>Freedomlies, too bad you didn't have the same hatred and anger for the enemy.

He does. He hates all Republicans.

Come to think of it, Freedom Fries DOES SUCK. And I don't mean in a good way...

i believe that by law, commercial broadcasters have to have a public policy on what advertisements they will or will not air. i think the problem with what MSNBC/CNBC are doing is that they are not being consistent in applying their own policies. that's the problem i have with this situation.

oh...and FF is yet another proof that the Left is the ideology of hate.

"Barney, you're an embarassment to thinking people everywhere." by pudge

That means so much coming from someone that is holed-up in a bunker full of toilet paper.

>I have seen/heard two ads. One mentioned above by FF and one on the radio. In both cases the ads linked Iraq and 9-11.

Yes they did. ABSOLUTELY they did.

Are you too stupid to understand that the Radical Islamists have declared war on us and 9/11 was their biggest attack?

Are you too stupid to understand that if we lose in Iraq, (as you keep hoping for) our odds of being attacked skyrocket?

Are you too stupid to understand we are involved in a global war on terrorism that THEY started but we have to finish.

Are you too stupid to understand all of this???

Are you such a fucking putz that all you fucking care about is your stupid fucking political power???

DO you give a flying fuck about this country being attacked again?

Are you such a fucking idiot that you want Al Qaeda in Iraq to win because you think that it will help your side win a fucking election?!?!?! ARE YOU?!?!?!

Can you see past you stupid fucking immature partisan dumbshit to quit fucking cheering for Al Qeada every fucking time you get the chance?

Are you too fucking stupid to comprehend if we leave Iraq millions of innocent people will be slaughtered....

Are you that fucking stupid Barney?... ARE YOU.

sorry everyone

Barney, I want so much for to hate you, but your humor are belong to me. Come on Barn, walk towards the light -No, not the one on the helmet of the guy workin' in the sewer- the light of the truth my man. I refuse to believe that one with a wit that has made me laugh twice in less than a month, is that confoundedly base in his world view. Come on boy, I got a biscuit and plenty of TP for ya, whadda ya say ?

Paul, it sounds like you are misinformed. Iraq did not attack us, we attacked them. Al Qaeda was and still is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The war has created more terrorists not less. Whether we stay or go they will still want and try to kill us. If we leave it up to the Iraqis they will be more than happy to wipe-out every single known Al Qaeda terrorist they can find. It is already happening now and it will only increase once the militias are set free.

Now take your putty mouth over to pudge's bunker and use up some of that toilet paper.

correction: "potty"

The networks have routinely rejected ads on controversial subjects for years.

Where was your outrage when it happened to liberal spots:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0313-04.htm

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=59&aid=21677

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/01/16/moveon/index.html

Paul, save your fingers, you are wasting your time trying to inform BG and the rest of the liberal slime. They care for nothing except to marginalize GW. That is it. They would sell out the country, and some have, to get GW. That is the intensity of their hatred. ww

>Paul, it sounds like you are misinformed. Iraq did not attack us,

I didn't say they did you fucking moron.

learn to fucking read.

>The networks have routinely rejected ads on controversial subjects

THAT'S the problem....

When did winning a war become a controversial topic?

Like it or not, they are deemed controversial.

I personally think this is a shitty and cowardly decision by MSNBC/CNBC. Just like I thought it was shitty and cowardly when the rejected anti-war ads in 2003 and 2004. As long as it is clear that they are ads, I don't see what the problem is.

Run the ads, let the people decide. It's as simple as that.

NBC, and especially MSNBC, have so soiled their own reputations by now, that this takes on less significance, merely by the fact that so few people will be watching ads.

It's the same old slow death march into oblivion the MSM have been on for years.

#17 Paul
Extremely well expressed

hey, where's the breaking news about the Republican Toiletgate, or should we call it Urinalgate, perhaps Bathroomgate?

Perhaps for the weekend caption contest you could picture a Republican Senate caucus bathroom photo of a urinal or gloryhole.

(AP) Fox News is refusing to air an ad critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

While I don't agree with their decision, I do understand that CNN and CNBC are within their rights to choose which commercials they do and do not want to run.

Choosing not to do so, however, shows an obvious clear and present bias.

Kudos on #17, Paul. That needed to be said. And don't be sorry. Hell, protesters were yelling FAR WORSE at President Bush here in Seattle yesterday.

Paul, YES, he is.

I just love how all of the pro-war folks here keep repeating the tired old RW talking points like: "fight them over there" like they don't have maps and can't find the USA unless they "follow us home". My other favorite is: "this is the most important struggle of our time".

If conservatives truly believed these things than your actions would match your words, but they don't.

Where is your call for a draft? If a surge of 30,000 troops into Iraq is "showing signs of progrss" than why not a surge of 500,000 like the earlier Generals in this conflict wanted? You know the ones that Donald Rumsfeld had dismissed, those Generals. So many Patriotic Americans predicted back then the mess we now find our selves in it boggles the mind. How could we have possible thought that we as a Nation could do this on the cheap?

Come on now, if our Goverment in the 1940s could defeat Germany and Japan at the same time by asking us to sacrifice by paying higher taxes, rationing supplies and instituting a draft, why are we so unwilling to step up to the plate now?

There is no call for sacrifice coming from this Government because the people who talked us into this war knew that asking Americans to give up a little comfort to win this "epic struggle" was more than we were willing to.

So next time you give us your rah-rah lets kill the bad guys speech, please tell us what you're willing to sacrifice for this "epic struggle of our generation".

The troops have given it their all, when are you going to step up to the plate?

My other favorite is: "this is the most important struggle of our time".

If conservatives truly believed these things than your actions would match your words, but they don't.

Where is your call for a draft?

What a pitiful strawman. There is no call for a draft because a draft is a bad idea.

You would have conservatives actively try to harm the military just to prove that terrorism is serious?

You're a putz.

By your same argument if we don't use nuclear weapons then that proves we really don't believe the war on terror is that important.

Because we don't have a draft that means that terrorism isn't important.

Are you as dumb as Barney?

Live@9,
Do you have any talking points that are not like ... three years old? I've heard and rebutted those like a thousand times. Gimme something new to deal with.

So I see SPQR and Paul would rather others do the fighting and sacrificing for them. They can't be bothered to give up anything for this epic struggle. Great, more keyboard warriors from the right is just what this country needs to win.

Paul,

You would have conservatives actively try to harm the military just to prove that terrorism is serious?

WTF?

Of course Iraq did not attack us on 9-11. But Iraq was tying down strategic forces we needed to fight the War on Terror. They were also in gross violation of the cease-fire agreement they signed in 1991. They were regularly firing on US and UK aircraft enforcing the terms of that cease fire.

That, by itself is justification for finishing off Saddam's regime. For those unclear on the concept of a cease-fire (vs a negotiated peace) a cease-fire means you can start shooting any time you feel like it once the other party violates it. After 9-11 we felt like it.

Why? Because we had a war to fight and Iraq was tying down three to four aircraft carriers and two (or maybe three) air divisions. This was a significant chunk of our ability to project force.

Leaving Iraq alone and withdrawing those assets would have put US ground forces in Kuwait, as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at the mercy of Iraq's army. It may not have been much, but it was a match for those ground forces we had in Kuwait and SA absent our strategic assets.

It would also have left terrorist a major base from which they could operate out of. Remember, Italy did not attack Poland in September, 1939, but by 1940 German military assets were operating out of Italian territory. To have ignored Iraq would have been to leave a major threat in our rear.

Today, while the US Army is fully committed in Iraq, neither the Air Force nor the Navy have much of their power projection assets there. They are available elsewhere.

That is one reason why North Korea has left South Korea alone. They saw what US air assets did to organized military formations in both Iraq and Afganistan. Today, wherever we have air superiority, a battalion of Special Forces and Rangers, equipped with the right radios can stop the advance of an army group, simply by calling down smart bombs. That is why Iran is infiltrating guerrillas and hiring insurgents That is why Syria has limited its actions to supporting surrogates.

We are in a much stronger position strategically today than we would have been had we ignored Iraq. The world is a much safer place because we invaded Iraq. That is what really drives the libs nuts. Because on a subconscious level they realize it.