During Vietnam, Rumsfeld Criticized Administration For “Credibility Gap”
During Vietnam, Rumsfeld Criticized Administration For “Credibility Gap”
It wasn’t all that long ago when a young conservative congressman from Illinois named Donald Rumsfeld spoke eloquently on the floor of the House of Representatives during the Vietnam War about the need for the Johnson administration to speak more truthfully about that conflict.
A 1966 article in the Chicago Tribune quoted Rumsfeld as saying the following: “The administration should clarify its intent in Viet Nam,’ he said. ‘People lack confidence in the credibility of our government.’ Even our allies are beginning to suspect what we say, he charged. ‘It’s a difficult thing today to be informed about our government even without all the secrecy,’ he said. ‘With the secrecy, it’s impossible. The American people will do what’s right when they have the information they need.” [Chicago Tribune, 4/13/66]
Rusmfeld entered into the Congressional Record an article from the Chicago Sun-Times entitled “Why U.S. Viet Policy Lacks Friends–Our Credibility Destroyed” Rumsfeld stated: “I do, however, believe it is important to the future of our Nation to recognize that there is a problem of credibility today.” [Congressional Record, 89th Cong. Pg. A1454, 3/15/66; Chicago Sun-Times, 12/5/65]
In entering a New York Times editorial into the Congressional Record, Rumsfeld said, “I believe the following significant and timely editorial which appeared in today’s issue of the New York Times and which discusses our involvement in Vietnam merits wide attention. I concur in the conclusion expressed therein that the people of the United States must know not only how their country became involved but where we are heading.” [Congressional Record, 89th Cong. Pg. 21081, 8/19/65; New York Times, 8/19/65]
Rumsfeld said the following in a speech on the House floor: “Accurate judgment is predicated on accurate information. Government has an obligation to present information to the public promptly and accurately so that the public’s evaluation of Government activities is not distorted. Political pundits speak of the ‘credibility gap’ in the present administration. Indeed, this appellation is so widespread that it has become a household word.” [Congressional Record, 90th Cong. pg A792, 2/21/67]
Don’t look now Rumsfeld, but “credibility gap” is becoming a household word again, and it’s directly related to your actions.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.), U.S. Army: “People are skeptical of what they’re hearing out of the Pentagon. I think Secretary Rumsfeld’s credibility has been damaged by serious misjudgments.” [MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 6/23/05]
“Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said it was obvious why public opinion polls were down. ‘We have a credibility gap here with the American people,’ he said.” [AP, 6/24/05]
Headline: “Bush’s Credibility Takes a Direct Hit From Friendly Fire” [LAT, 6/26/05]
Headline: “Bush’s Credibility on Iraq Undercut by Violence, Slow Progress” [Bloomberg, 6/27/05]
It’s time for Rumsfeld to follow his own advice.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
166 Responses to “During Vietnam, Rumsfeld Criticized Administration For “Credibility Gap””
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This is added evidence to how political Rumsfeld is. Did you notice how on Meet The Press Rumsfeld said "I don't do politics", but then without batting an eyelid went on to defend Karl Rove as if he were Rove's very own spokesman?
He even pulled out the "but-he-was-talking-about-moveon.org" double-lie - (a) Rove was talking about all liberals not just moveon.org, and (b) moveon.org never called for terrorists to undergo therapy.
This guy gets weirder every day. Probably because he knows that nothing he can do will get him fired.
June 27th, 2005 at 11:27 amAren't Americans paying attention? It looks like enough of them are not, or don't care, or are too preoccupied with watching "One Night in Paris". :-(
Iraq is looking a whole lot like Vietnam, and the English in Iraq 1925, and the Soviet Union's last harrah in Afghanistan.
I shake my head in disbelief that anyone would let these bozos get away with all that they have. Rummy? He's as scary as the rest of these crooks!
June 27th, 2005 at 11:48 amIn light of the excellent research that turned up Rumsfeld's own words about the Vietnam "Quagmire" there is only one word that comes to mind to describe this sorry excuse for a human being...HYPOCRITE...he and his boss need to be gone, gone, gone! FAST!
June 27th, 2005 at 11:48 amI think that Rumsfeld, like so many others (past and present), has just become a tool of his masters. Back in the day, it looked like Rummy was acting in the interests of the people, but I'm sure he was just caving-in to consituent pressures.
Exhibit 1: Rummy - tool of the re-election
Now Rummy is Dubya's talking head at the Pentagon. Rummy dutifully follows the company line. When asked questions like, "Do you do politics?" he'll answer in the way that is least damaging to the administration's credibility, or he'll just talk a circle around the issue.
Exhibit 2: Rummy - tool of the Bush
There have been (and will be) many careers made on the ability to follow orders (particularly in politics). Rumsfeld's career is just a relevant example.
June 27th, 2005 at 11:50 amHistorical Quote of the Day
"The administration should clarify its intent in Vietnam. People lack confidence in the credibility of our government... It’s a difficult thing today to be informed about our government even without all the secrecy. With the secrecy, it’s impossible. ...
June 27th, 2005 at 11:53 amLet’s play WCAAWTCIAW!
We’re gonna play a little game. It’s called:
June 27th, 2005 at 12:26 pmWho Criticized An Administration While The Country Is At War? (WCAAWTCIAW)
I’m going to put in a few quotes and you tell me who said them (all the same person). You can even generalize. I...
[...] ration. Indeed, this appellation is so widespread that it has become a household word.� Can you guess who Criticized An Administrat [...]
June 27th, 2005 at 12:27 pmPosted this on Atrios a while ago..
Has anyone else noticed ??
von Rummy seems to be losing it of late.
He is no longer the cocky 'daytime tv star' of the old days. He seems very unsure and he actually plods through replies to questions instead of answering a set of his own questions.
Never mind the stupid rhetoric and words..Nothing more revealing than body language. In Rummy's case, he looks and acts like he was locked up in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib for a while..None of that swagger, that corny machismo..He looks and sounds almost broken..I assume that the uniformed folks must have shown him the middle finger long ago..He reminds me of one of those guys from Nuremberg..Pale, tentative, confused..
half-senile..The best he could do to Kennedy's questioning was.."But I've already resigned twice.." in that schoolboy tone..Pathetic..Almost feel a little sorry for him, but I know more fun is on the way where von Rummy is concerned..
Pompous ass...
June 27th, 2005 at 12:39 pmPlow the MSM with these quotes!
June 27th, 2005 at 12:47 pmYou have to wonder what damaging info Bushie has on Rummy.
June 27th, 2005 at 1:02 pmRummy gave his resignation twice and Bushie said no.
If Rummy wanted out he would leave, no?
The answer is one of two:
Rummy does not really want to leave although he admits he's a failure.
Or: Bushie has threatened him with something worse than impeachment.
1) Everything changed after 9/11
2) Iraq is not the same as Vietnam.
3) Clinton got a blow job and lied about it.
/wingnut
June 27th, 2005 at 1:32 pmthere are knowable quagmires and unknowable quagmires, and knowable credibility gaps and unknown credibility gaps...
/rumsfeld
June 27th, 2005 at 1:33 pm[...] Rumsfeld, old and new Posted in Evil, Eye Rollers, Politics at 10:31 by chris During Vietnam, Rumsfeld Criticized Adminis [...]
June 27th, 2005 at 1:35 pm[...] as you wish. A random list of things: Howard Dean on the Daily Show — good stuff! Old Rummy meet young Rummy. Santorum o [...]
June 27th, 2005 at 1:37 pmIsn't it strange how a person's idea of "credibility" can change over the years? But then when one works with the group in power, one can make any word or statement mean whatever one wants. Dick Cheney is a good example of this. And we must not forget Karl (Goebels) Rove who likes to re-write history to fit into his agenda.
June 27th, 2005 at 1:39 pmThe Exit Strategy: a sustainable Iraqi democracy
Think Progress makes a legitimate and powerful criticism of the administration. They cite Donald Rumsfeld, circa 1966...
June 27th, 2005 at 1:51 pm[...] nd accurately so that the public’s evaluation of Government activities is not distorted. –Donald Rumsfeld, 1967
[...]
June 27th, 2005 at 1:54 pmGood to see that Iraq and Vietnam are the same thing.
Isn't a quamire when you drive your car off into the water you flee, and you secretary drowns in four feet of water?
Or, isn't it a quagmire if you are seeking to represent the democratic party in the Senate, but you were a former 'cyclops' of the KKK, and you filibustered the civil rights amendment?
If the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is close enough, then would it be fair to call Kennedy a murderer and Byrd a racist?
This war is more like WWII, than Vietnam. But even comparing those two is a stretch, that I would not care to make.
Good to see the geniuses of history finding similarities. I understand the exit strategy, but do the dems? No. That is why I cannot support them, even though I have voted Dem in the past. No plan, no vision-is the critique that is being used. Do the dems have a plan or a vision? They'd be talking about it now if they had one.
June 27th, 2005 at 1:58 pmI guess that was before he went over to the dark side?
June 27th, 2005 at 1:59 pmThe dems have no plan.
They don't have a plan to increase our national wealth, they don't have a plan for China, NK, Iran, and most importantly Iraq. They complain about dependency on foreign oil, but don't want to produce it domestically.
Although, if sitting and complaining is an effective plan, they are succeeding. Very similar to an old folks home-they're not going anywhere, the sit and bitch, and occassionally get their diapers changed-but the best years and ideas are gone as the world becomes more global.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:06 pmIF this is Vietnam, where are the protestors in the street?
June 27th, 2005 at 2:09 pmMark,
There are no protestors because there is no Draft. The Admin has intentionally made this the "no sacrifice" war except for the 500K or so soldiers that have had to be in Iraq over the past 2+ years.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:20 pmPolish Sausage,
So I F'd up plan is better than no plan?
I vaguely recall just a little bit of bitching and moaning from the Right during the Clinton Adminstration. Correction - a Tsunami of bithching and moaning.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:22 pmTo Mark: Taking cheap shots at Kennedy and Bird is the crux of your argument. That's pretty pathetic, but it isn't as bad as using those cheap shots as an analogy to the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Dude, there's something called critical thinking. You should try it. Also, wait to see if the Bushies step in their own crap in Iran. They'll have to bring back the draft, and that's when you'll see the protestors in the streets.
To Mark and polish sausage: I have been driving motor vehicles for nearly a quarter of a century now, and I can assure you of one basic fact: before you can start going in the correct direction, you first need to stop going really fast in the wrong direction. I'll feel safe backseat-driving the Dems only after we're done getting the drunken, insane Republicans out of the driver's seat.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:22 pmRobert-
So, you are admitting you have no plan?
That is the biggest f'up of all. Two political parties, only one source of ideas...
but vote Democratic and things will get better?
June 27th, 2005 at 2:25 pm500K or so soldiers that have had to be in Iraq over the past 2+ years. -
Robert
So now you lie about the troop levels?
This is the dems problems, things aren't perfect, but they are trying to make things appear so bad, that they lose all credibility.
The dems would much rather we not succeed in Iraq, for so many reasons, that they no longer are part of the discussion. History will scorch them for this, failure or success.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:29 pmmark,
There are plans being proposed by Democrats all the time. What would you like a plan on? National security? Decreasing our dependence on foreign oil? Tying up loose nukes? Fixing Social Security? The Democrats have comprehensive plans on EVERY issue, so you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:30 pmKiki's almost right. It was "before" -- when he said be open and honest, he was talking about LBJ's war, and it was long before he and Cheney started playing house with Tricky Dick.
In other words, he was snarking a Democratic President and a Democratically-controlled Congress at the time. I doubt he would have called for open information in a Goldwater Administration.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:30 pm"The dems would much rather we not succeed in Iraq, for so many reasons, that they no longer are part of the discussion."
Another blatant lie. Every Democrat I hear says the same thing, that regardless of how we got into this mess, we have to do our best to see that the result is in ALL of our best interests. Personally, I think they should continue to pound the Bushies for their slimy lies day in and day out (ok, Conyers did what he could with the DSM....but it's not enough)...but they seem to be taking the constructive approach. mark, you're going to have to pull your head out of your ass.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:34 pmJay-
So let's hear it. Please tell me what the democratic plan for Iraq is...
And terrorism, while you are at it.
You can even cite sources of links if you want. Please back up any plan you present by a list of at least three dems discussing it and referring to it.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:38 pmmark -
What would be the use of the Democrats setting out a plan at this point? They can't even stop Congress from approving pathetic appointees to critical positions. This administration has made a point of ignoring Democratic input. The time to talk about their plan will be right before the elections of 2006. I think people will be receptive.
BTW, a quaqmire is when you ignore terrorism until it hits you head on, and then you drive your nation the wrong way into a ditch to avoid it, spin the wheels until you're too deep into a deficit to get out, and then you flee into your private oil fortune while most of the population drowns.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:42 pmIn the runup to the election John Kerry was very specific about how he wanted to go to our (former) strong allies (Germany, France Russia) and work hard to repair the damage that's been done to those relationships, get them involved in the process of quelling the violence (and surely share in the spoils of war, i.e. divvying up the natural resources), stabilizing the country by providing jobs to Iraqis that American mega contractors were doing for 50X the price, creating some goodwill, etc. and eventually bringing international peacekeeping forces (UN, etc) and getting us out. Sounded like a plan to me. To suggest otherwise is false. You just don't want to hear the truth.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:42 pmHere is the link to John Kerry's former plan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer
June 27th, 2005 at 2:46 pmKerry's secret plan doesn't count.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:48 pmI'm sorry, I didn't know a speech at NYU and pulibaction in the Washington Post was a secret. You said that Democrats had no plan on Iraq and I just gave the Democrat candidates plan. You're wrong, so eat the crow you so richly deserve.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:50 pmmark, what's the administration's "plan" for Iraq or the war on terror? They haven't even managed to catch Osama, and so far the war on terror (measured from 9/11 to today) has laster a months and a half longer than US involvement in World War II (from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day). Porter Goss says al-Qaeda's still a threat. That's a pretty incompetent prosecution of the only foreign group to carry out an attack on US soil in 60 years. I think that just about anyone on the Democratic side who wouldn't have taken their eyes off the ball (i.e. al-Qaeda) -- as John Kerry said during the debates last year -- would have done and would do a better job.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:52 pmFunny that all I ask for is the dems plan, and the first thing you can find is from September 2004?
This one followed his Aug 9 speech where he says he would have gone to Iraq, even if we knew there were no WMD's?
You don't have a plan, except whine and pander.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:53 pmAnd you are in denial and a liar.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:54 pmMark and Sausage polisher can't find their asses with both hands, or Bin Ladden or WMDs or the blog sites where all the other chickenhawk-sympathizers go to pat themselves on the back. Apparently mirroring each other gets boring so they come here to show how scatterbrained they are with facts, timelines, and relavence.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:56 pmSo now that you had a chance to see John Kerry's (the Democratic nominee for the Presidency) comprehensive plan on fighting terrorism and Iraq, and you still deny that Dems had a plan, you have officially made an ass of yourself.
But Kerry lost, so you Republicans OWN it. Dems have NO power and this is Bushes war, so figure it out for yourselves.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:58 pmI have an idea Mark and Sausage polisher, comment on the topic?
June 27th, 2005 at 3:00 pmNice find!
June 27th, 2005 at 3:02 pmTerrorism? Change the current politcal structure in the ME. Hold countries who harbor terrorists accountable.
Iraq?Establish a trained military that will fight for their government, so that US soldiers won't have to. Making sure that the government is established after the writing of the constitution, and we are out of there...
UBL on the lose is troubling, but what exactly is the democratic plan for catching him? Whine or complain? I'm hearing that he is Pakistan or Iran...which country would you like to go to war with?
If you are impatient with the war on terroism, you are demonstrating your complete ignorance of the problem.
As 'John Kerry said...' ? you mean the old flip-flopper? His odds of getting the presidency just went in at 40 to 1 for 2008. Even the dems don't see him as credible.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:03 pmNot to interrupt the fun you're obviously having with the adorable little ignorant troll...which is obviously funny. He has a lot of time on his hands, obviously.
Uh, the one little problem with the Old Rumsfeld vs. New Rumsfeld comments - notice which party held the presidency at the time of his comments. It's not surprising to hear things like this come out of his mouth back then. I would be very, very interested to hear his comments during the Nixon presidency. Did suddenly a quagmire become a success, something we couldn't run from unless them other folk think us pansies and communism start its inexorable march across the globe?
Look into it...I believe Rummy became part of the quagmire during the Nixon presidency.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:03 pmthe dems have no plan! the dems have no plan! la la la la can't hear you!
June 27th, 2005 at 3:03 pmYou're using a speech from 2004 as a plan?
Get real.
You have no plan.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:05 pmI have a plan:
stop building the permanent military bases that you promised you weren't going to build.
stop stealing their natural resources.
pull the big American contractors out and sink the reconstruction money into hiring Iraqis to rebuild their own country (how much freedom and independence can a nation have if we shock and awe them, kill innocent civilians and then war-profiteer our asses off...good plan GWB), once we put them to work many will stop fighting their occupiers. becaise they have hope and can feed their families.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:05 pm#42 is a rightwing idiot who hasn't been paying attention.
Thank goodness they're now in the minority!
Gawd I detest hypocritical stupid people.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:06 pmAnd what's Bush's plan to get us off foreign oil? To increase domestic production to fill 5% of our needs? While demand grows by leaps and bounds? Is that the plan?
Kerry's plan was a Manhattan Project for new energy sources. That is the only thing that will get us off oil -- foreign or domestic.
And believe me, a $200 billion investment in that will go a lot further than $200 billion in Iraq.
And what is Bush's plan for Iraq? For terrorism? I haven't seen any evidence of a plan so far.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:06 pm"I can't tell you my plan, but if you read all this democratic material you will see that our ideas are much better."
You have a chairman of your party-what plan for Iraq has he expressed?
June 27th, 2005 at 3:07 pm"I’m hearing that he is Pakistan or Iran…which country would you like to go to war with?"
Well, which nation are this admin is currently best buddies with? Can you guess? It starts with a "P." Oh yes, they have lots of madrassas for recruiting the next gen of fanatics and the most likely location for Bin Ladin. And lots of bombs. Sort of like our other best friends, that start with an "S."
P.S. beg yourself a clue, as you obviously hold down no job. This admin has no "morals." They are as realpolitik as the Cold War administrations, which makes for some um...interesting bedfellows. Like, oh, Iraq? Iran? You can see where we'll be in ten years time? Perhaps the point is too obscure?
June 27th, 2005 at 3:09 pmHoly crap! That plan was from last fall jackass, you act like it was from 20 years ago. When you have an election your candidate trots out his plans (unless he's the current misleader in chief) and that's what Kerry did. As I said, the Dems have no power to implement any plan now. November was the Dems opportunity to present a plan and then they could let the American people decide. That's what the Kerry team did. Sure beats the non-plan that the nitwits-in-charge have offered....but what do I know.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:11 pmMark, do you consider A.Q. Khan a terrorist? Why hasn't Pakistan been held accountable?
If you think Bush has changed the political structure of the mideast and held countries accountable, then I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
As for training Iraqis, shouldn't there be a timetable for training forces? Seems if you know how long it takes to train a soldier, you know how long it takes to train 150,000. Yet not a peep out of this administration about that. They can't even agree on how many are trained in the past two years.
And to answer your question, yes we should have chased bin Laden into Pakistan, instead of Iraq.
Now admit that you voted for the guy who walks hand-in-hand through the bluebonnets with one of the world's most brutal dictators. Even after all that talk about accountability and democracy.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:11 pmBush is Righteous! All Hail Commander Bush! Sieg Heil! The Right Knows No Wrong! I love my Bush!
John Kerry is French! Michael Moore is Fat! And neither have no plan for my Bush! My Bush is strong and mighty and can sink a warship with one withering look! And it smells like a Summer's Eve.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:12 pmTerrorism? Change the current politcal structure in the ME. Hold countries who harbor terrorists accountable.
Boy, that's working. Pakistan's our ally against terror, right? Where do we think Osama is again? I don't see US demands under the Bush admin. to go in and get him.
Iraq?Establish a trained military that will fight for their government, so that US soldiers won’t have to. Making sure that the government is established after the writing of the constitution, and we are out of there…
That's working too, just like they told us going in...
UBL on the lose is troubling, but what exactly is the democratic plan for catching him? Whine or complain? I’m hearing that he is Pakistan or Iran…which country would you like to go to war with?
Where did you hear Iran? I'm curious, especially as of late. Otherwise I can't see how the Dems. have a monopoly on whining and complaining about Osama. We can't call BULLSHIT on your admin. without a chorus of "Oh you're undermining our troops" or "you support terrorists rather than our country". If that's not ignorant whining, we need to go back and redefine the word.
Nice try though.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:15 pmSo when asked for a plan, all I have right now from the dems is a 2004 campaign speech, some more campaign speeches from 2004, an article from the WaPo, and finally, "why do we need to put out a plan, no one will vote for it."
This is the problem.
When presenting the democratic plan for Iraq-
let's try and have more than one Senator discussing this alternative, and something a little more current than last year's presidential campaign.
Bush's approval on Iraq was around 44% when reelected. You'd think Kerry would have capitalized. IT was the number one campaign issue...and he still lost. So long as you have no plans, you will be the party of losers.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:16 pmAnd you will continue to be a lying sphincter.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:22 pmMark, do you consider A.Q. Khan a terrorist? Why hasn’t Pakistan been held accountable?
Pakistan has nukes. It is 90% muslim. UBL's approval in the country is in the 70's. We go in, by ourselves, or Pakistan goes in, and there is an uprising, then it would be tantamount to turning over a complete nuclear arsenal to Islamic terrorists. Musharraf controls the country by the skin of his teeth.
Given the choice of UBL or giving nukes ovewr to terrorists...I'll wait.
"Where did you hear Iran?" 90% he is in Pakistan, 10% in Iran.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:23 pmSo mark polished sausage, what about Rummie's comments then and now? #53's a good one, shows your maturity and intellect all-in-one. Maybe Rummie should have responded like that. What are your political/Pentagon as(s)pirations?
June 27th, 2005 at 3:25 pmMark and Polish,
I assume by your right wingnut comments above that you think the current approach by this administration is right on the mark? That the strategy to wear-em down over the next decade is acceptable to your children or grandchildren?
Even though it will not rid the world of terrorism, you are willing to stay the course?
Your points about WWII and Viet Nam are accepted, every war is different, as are the political evirnonments of the times.
There are no protests in the US because there is no draft this time and the MSM is firmly in the far right camp thanks to big business ownership so protests are not covered. I do believe there were plenty of protests in Europe and recently on Mrs. Bush's trip to the mid-East.
Finally, people don't care because they are too worried about filling their car with gas or how to make it day to day thanks to the Bush "tinkle down" tax roll back for the rich that has left the middle class devistated.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:29 pmWhy did we go into Iraq if we thought they had WMD's, but we CAN'T go into Pakistan because of WMDs? Get your foot out of your mouth when you try to explain it please.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:29 pmHere's a brief questionairre to help you guys formulate a cohesive strategy for Iraq...
A. 1.Leave now or 2.finish the job?
B. 1.More troops, 2.withdraw some, 3.keep it the same?
C. 1.Hopeless(quagmire), 2.salvagable, 3.successful to this point?
D. 1.We are committed to seeing this thru, 2.committed until the administration leaves in 2008, 3.or this was a bad idea from the beginning so I won't endorse any plan or resolution for this illegal war?
E. The Iraq people can expect-1.our full support, 2.some of our support, 3.no support?
Just curious...
June 27th, 2005 at 3:38 pmConflicting Viewpoints
Saying one thing. When the facts say something different. How many examples can we find? Plenty.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:43 pmI think mark is saying we didn't go into Pakistan because Bush is a big fat pussy and mark doesn't think our military has what it takes to secure a relatively small nuclear arsenal in the face of a third world mob. I disagree on the second point. We know the Pakistani arsenal was being peddled around the world already, so the rationale for not invading because we're scared of WMD just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Especially when we're invading another country which supposedly had them. At least that's what this administration said time and again.
But we now know Iraq had the least WMD capabilities of the contenders. Maybe that's the logic. Say anything to get the public to go along, then when the truth comes out claim you were right anyway.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:44 pmmark,
The Bushies are the experts on national security, national defense, foreign policy and war....so I feel confident that we are in good hands and that Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest of the A team will lead us all to the promised land. Us "progressives" really have no business meddling in the critical realms that the chickenhawks have displayed such competence in. It is their show.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:49 pmMark,
If I took a shit on your desk, would you formulate a plan for cleaning it up? Or would you make me clean it up?
Let's suppose the Democrats had a glorious plan that even you would admit was a plan. How would they implement it? Do you really think W THE PRESIDENT would announce that he is relying on a plan from the party that controls no branch of government to solve Iraq?
Sometimes being an opposition party means opposing shit that needs to be opposed. You'd do the same thing if your party weren't in power.
Whatever Iraq is, glorious freedom-spreading enterprise, horrible failure, or anything in between, IT BELONGS TO BUSH. So be a man and stop diverting responsibility away from your beloved W THE PRESIDENT. Conservatives are supposed to have a deep sense of responsibility, so what gives?
June 27th, 2005 at 3:53 pmmark, what we do now is a real problem because this administration dove headlong into the deep end of hell without adequate planning. So in effect Bush has cut off most of our options at this point. That's why nobody has a plan to clean up his mess other than the obvious -- train Iraqis to fight in our place and undertake the most ambitious nation-building exercise in history. And many don't put much faith in that. The best we can hope for now is to replace this bumbling administration with some real experts, get a hands-on team with attention to detail -- something sorely lacking in this Presidency -- and leave something resembling stability before we go bankrupt trying.
This President seems to think you can just say the word democracy and it happens. His plan for Darfur was to say genocide and hope it goes away. His plan for Iraq wasn't much better. I think Bush and his team were expecting that we'd all be vacationing in Free Iraq by now.
Do you think Bush is surprised that this is "Hard Work?"
June 27th, 2005 at 3:53 pmI think at this point Bush needs to start listening to the people who were right where he was wrong. But I doubt that will happen, ever.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:55 pmSkid-I'm trying to be nice, but you really don't understand what Pakistan's nuclear capabilities are, so you should read up befoe discussing them. They are off limits because their nuke program is too far down the road for us to do anything.
The same cannot be said for Iran and NK-so do yuo think we should invade either? Would it be presumptuous if the adminstration is already coming up with a plan for either country? That would just mean that Bush wanted to do it all along.
David B-
"I assume by your right wingnut comments above that you think the current approach by this administration is right on the mark?"
No not by a long shot. They have about a 40% personal approval from me on Iraq. The problem is that the dems are at 0%. They have no plan other than exploiting any failure as a sign of their success. All kidding aside, the dems are rooting against any success, because it makes their predictions of failure look bad. Real bad.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:56 pmHow would they implement it?
Use their public forum, they get their faces on TV everyday, and say"WE have a better plan, here it is. You have senators and representatives, are they useless?(You don't want me to answer that). "We put out a plan, but no one will listen?"
Take the quiz at#61. then we'll talk.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:59 pmmark, you're not paying attention or you're believing what the wingnuts are telling you. Nobody wants failure. How fuvcking hard is that to comprehend? The adults realize that this is broken and horrible and that it needs a solution but they (the D's) also know that they have no power to implement any plan on Iraq, so in some ways it would be an excercise in futility for them to spend too much time formulating plans that WILL NEVER BE EXECUTED. Do you undertsand that? Several posts here have tried to explain that the Bush team made this mess, they're in power and they are going to have to fix it.
What the Dems should be doing is THEIR JOB, which is holding this adminstration to account for the lies it told to get us into this mess and fight like hell to establish a balance of power. The Bushies MUST be held responsible for war crimes and lying to the American people. No excuses at this point, just too much evidence.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:04 pmMark, nice try on the Pakistan excuse, but it doesn't cut the mustard. Try again.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:04 pmThere is a BIG difference between poiting out the failures and wishing for them.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:07 pmSpeaking of planning-
Anybody want to talk about the UN and the fact that they did enter post-war Iraq, immediately before being blown out of country?
The had their own plans for security, and wanted easy access to all sides...the result was a curbside truck bomb, taking out the head of the UN in Iraq. Seems poor planning is not just Bush's problem.
Funny, because we told them, you need a wider security barrier and we even offered to enforce it...they turned us down and doomed their people.
Interesting to not that the insurgency, from that day foward, believed, that the Foreignors once bloodied would run. Actually they learned what UBL had been saying for a long time, after Somalia, the Embassies, the Cole...no will to fight.
If I know that a country has no will, it will always be broken by fear. The democrats greates fear? That this War is successful. All other fears are secondary.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:09 pmIf I'm on a work crew, anybody will listen to anyone's idea to get the work done quicker. If someone sits and complains, but has no solution, we get tired of hearing them, and send them on private detail.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:14 pmMark,
Believe me, I wish some more Democrats did have a plan and would talk about it. But let's look at this thing in the face. Strictly military-presence-speaking, there are 3 options:
1. Leave completely as soon as possible.
2. Set a timetable for leaving.
3. Stay indefinitely.
If the Dems proposed (1), they'd be accused of being weak and unpatriotic for wanting to "cut and run." Bush has repeatedly ruled out (2). (3) is the current plan.
Am I missing something? Because if I am, please tell me. People are dying, and I don't understand why you are more concerned with criticizing Democrats when you admit that you are 40% pleased with the Republicans. I happen to agree with you that the Dems are being pussies on this issue, but I guess if you want to focus your displeasure on the party with considerably less power right now, then that's what you'll do. Can't argue with you on that.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:15 pmMark,
Rooting for success means that there has to be some logical, ethical group of leaders who listen to suggestions from all sides so you can have some hope that a good plan will be recognized. That is not in place because Bush admits no errors and believes only in himself. He act as a king rather than an elected offical.
At what point in your plan does conscription get rolled back out? The Army can only miss its recruiting goals for so long, the Reserves are tired. I guess you can buy some time by asking the young republicans at school to step to the plate for Bush's war, well maybe.
When the draft is rolled out, it will be the end of the republican party, stay tuned.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:16 pmSo proud of your positions(?) on the war, but no one takes the quiz at #61.
No plan.
Sad.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:16 pmAs far as your demand of a Dem. plan, remember who called for, and will call for again when BushCo. is out, is a multi-national (not coalition of debtors) plan of rebuilding and peacekeeping. Will it work? Maybe, maybe not, but the current "plan" isn't working very well, which hinders the possibility of future, well thought out plans.
Read it a few times if you need to. I'll understand.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:17 pmmark,
but as we established earlier in the thread, Dems offered solutions, formal, comprehensive solutions. So your claim is just false. I'm not sure what "work crew" you're on, but I'd rather get it done right as opposed to "quicker". You've been brainwashed into believing that Dems are evil and that the sins and hypocrisy of Republicans is OK. How can you people sleep at night?
June 27th, 2005 at 4:19 pmQuit whining about your little quiz. Address Rummie's comments, then and now. What do you think?
June 27th, 2005 at 4:23 pmWhat about my plans in post #46? Seem reasonable to me.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:25 pmmark, it's not predictions of failure, it's recognition of failure. We're in a mess right now. No predicting about it.
June 27th, 2005 at 4:48 pm[...] ome a household word.” From Think Progress, a collection of the wisdom of the much younger Donald Rumsfeld. And Rumsfeld [...]
June 27th, 2005 at 4:49 pmMark, the reason no one's answering your little "quiz" is there's no point in it. You've rigged the questions in such a way that you either support the Administration's efforts to date or consider them a failure. Your comment before the quiz implies (well, actually it states outright) that answering it will produce a "cohesive strategy for Iraq". Unfortunately, it does not.
June 27th, 2005 at 5:17 pmBush had no "strategy for Iraq" (cohesive or otherwise) prior to the Blitzkrieg and he has no "strategy for Iraq" now, more than 2 years after the Blitzkrieg. He lied about the reasons we "had" to go in; he lies about what's going on there now. (Okay, perhaps "lying" does constitute a "strategy for Iraq"--you didn't actually say that it had to make any sense, but that's another point all to itself.)
As for myself, I would answer your little "questionnaire" (and note the correct spelling there--spellcheck *can* be your friend, if you'll let it) in this way:
A. (3)none of the above ("job" is not defined for the purposes of the question, therefore #2 can't be a reasonable answer; define "job" and you can expect an answer)
B. (4)withdraw all (see, once again your question is flawed--if you suggest that *more* troops might be an answer, then its proper contrary position would to withdraw all, not some; you also left off another possible answer--"replace tired or exhausted troops and national guardsmen with Dubya's die-hard supporters who are currently too busy partying at college or claim they have other responsibilities")
C. (1)hopeless (quagmire) (actually, I'd say it's beyond hopeless as long as Dubya and his brains won't set a "timetable"--which would suggest there's some semblance of an eventual withdrawal from Iraq)
D. (4)I didn't support this illegal invasion, but will wholeheartedly support a rational plan that will get us out of Iraq without leaving the wreckage that we've caused so far (see, again, you didn't offer enough possibilities in your questionnaire)
E. (4)Which "Iraq people"? (By "Iraq people", are you talking about a)the Shi'a majority who suffered under Saddam but will likely return women to the same level of second-class status they have in Saudi Arabia and Iran, b)the Sunni minority who will be relegated to becoming Iraq's version of Zimbabwe's white farmers, c)the Kurdish minority who demand full control of the north Iraqi oilfields (including complete control of Mosul and Kirkuk) with no "Arabs" allowed in a Kurdish state, and who will be most likely to resume the anti-Baghdad insurgency in support of a separate Kurdish nation over the objections of Turkey, d)the families of the more than 100,000 Iraqis who became mere "collateral damage" since the Blitzkrieg began, e)the Iraqis whose own industries have been replaced by foreign (i.e., American) multinational corporations who've been given all the rebuilding contracts, f)the former Ba'ath Party members whose only "crime" was belonging to the Party in order to obtain a job or education under Saddam and have been blacklisted by the current government or g)the Iraqis who were supposed to welcome our soldiers with open arms as was promised by the anti-Saddam clods from whom Bush and his cohorts were gathering "intelligence"? We didn't giving a flying fig about the "Iraq people" during the decade that OUR government--led by Reagan and the first Bush [oh, yeah, also some fellow named Rumsfeld was involved]--sold munitions and chemicals to Saddam. We didn't ask him to sign any agreements not to use those things on his internal political opponents. We didn't give a flying fig about the "Iraq people" during Desert Storm as we were willing to bomb the living daylights out of Baghdad then, just to return a bunch of overprivileged Kuwaiti royal brats to power--brats who, by the way, reneged on the promise to introduce democratic principles to their country as a way of thanking America for liberating their country; more than a decade later, women are still not allowed political representation nor does the vast majority of Kuwaiti residents have any say in how they're governed--in 1991, more than 60% of the people living in Kuwait were foreigners, mostly "guest workers", and the situation isn't much different now.)
Redesign your "questionnaire" to reflect a greater variety of opinion, and people might respond to it. As it is now, it's little better than a "Do you support the Ten Commandments or are you a godless Communist" type of questionnaire.
Well put Joseph.
mark, have a look at this article:
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/06/26/ed.col.chaney.0626.html
June 27th, 2005 at 6:28 pm[...] ple will do what’s right when they have the information they need.� Who said this? Donald Rumsfeld, 1966. Irony rules in [...]
June 27th, 2005 at 8:55 pmYo! Troll!
Question for Mark:
You speak with a swagger, sorta like Rummy, and you seem to be full of military wisdom, so tell me, which branch of the military did you serve in?
Also, so far as your plan for Iraq questionairre is concerned -- ANSWER: None of the above, we declare we won, go home and leave the locals to sort things out for themselves. That is, after all, essentially what Nixon did. Let's do that and call it a day.
FWIW: This entire military misadventure in the 'Raq has been presecuted by a bunch of wannabes who have never (I repeat: NEVER!) been in harms way. Got that?
-Sky
June 27th, 2005 at 10:18 pmThis is for the winger on the Springer stage, aka Mark..
What is our plan?
The White House, September 24, 2005
Over a half a million people demanding that Bushie resign or Congress begin Impeachment Hearings.
Care to join us or are you all talk?
June 27th, 2005 at 11:05 pmYou go to the Gap with the credibility you have.
June 28th, 2005 at 4:14 am"You’ve rigged the questions in such a way that you either support the Administration’s efforts to date or consider them a failure."
That is the point of an assessment. Proceed or cancel operations.
I beleive the strategy for Iraq is to establish a representative government inclusive of all elements of Iraqi society, and to train their forces to support their government. 'Job' implies and understanding of the work necessary, since you don't understand what the 'job' is, apparently you don't understand the mission. 'Immediate withdrawal' and 'quagmire', is your opinion, get 30 dem Senators to preent a resolution for 'immediate withdrawal'. Right now you couldn't get 10 to sign it. A year from now, who knows? But there is a plan for dems. Your answer to d is strange, because you support withdrawal-so maybe they should stay and finish the 'job'-the one you don't even understand?
"but will likely return women to the same level of second-class status they have in Saudi Arabia and Iran"-seems wishful thinking. It won't happen, which if true, would be an assumption you made in error. IT is your opinion, but seems unsupported and ill informed.
"c)the Kurdish minority who demand full control of the north Iraqi oilfields (including complete control of Mosul and Kirkuk)" you do realize that the president of Iraq is a Kurd?
"100,000 Iraqis" killed by americans or insurgents? The UN puts the collateral damage at 24,000, at odds(?) with the Lancet-the same lancet who said mammograms are not effective...
"the former Ba’ath Party members" it is the biggest problem after the pourous borders...you forgot to mention the Baathist in Syria, the only other Baathist government in the region, providing support and staging areas...
"the Iraqis who were supposed to welcome our soldiers with open arms " they still do, in 15 of the 18 provinces. You are focusing on the areas of conflict, because it is easily digested news. Can't help you see things, if the press doesn't report them, but I'm sure you'd rather not know.
"We didn’t giving a flying fig" absolutely correct. Didn't care after the African embassies, Somalia, the Cole-it took a direct attack on the US to lower our threshold of what will be yolerated from the ME. Interesting also that Zarqawi was working for Anser-Al-Islam, in Northern Iraq. One of the many minor leagues of terrorism waiting to make the move into the big leagues. Ther are about 4 groups that could have made the move that AlQueda made, given Zarqawi's action, would he never have come inot conflict with the US if left undisturbed?
" just to return a bunch of overprivileged Kuwaiti royal brats to power" if that is what you believe, I odubt I'll change that. If it is any consolation, John Kerry voted against that one, before he voted for the current one....
You give me the questionaire of your design-
but by history UBL has reported that Americans have no stomach to pursue matters-the progressives are proving him correct. Before Iraq, it was true...do you think at this point(after Iraq) a sovereign country would allow terrorists to train and /or take action from their country against the US?
Asking democrats for a plan seems vague-let me narrow it down-
June 28th, 2005 at 8:44 amHow would you address the threat of global terrorism, in reagrds to putting pressure on the ME? Boycott their oil?
"Over a half a million people demanding that Bushie resign or Congress begin Impeachment Hearings."
From a computer? You had more signatures of the Moveon resloution not to use military force on Afghanistan.
June 28th, 2005 at 8:50 amOh and another thing...
Vietnam was a Civil War. We chose the wrong side.
Some wishful thinkers here probably would like to see a civil war in Iraq, but htne their have nothing to cite other than Juan Cole.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:15 am"Not to interrupt the fun you’re obviously having with the adorable little ignorant troll"..."Look into it…I believe Rummy became part of the quagmire during the Nixon presidency."
Here is the casualties by year....you decide when the quagmire started. Nixon takes the oath of office January 1969.
http://thewall-usa.com/stats/#year
Seems miss peekaoboo was to lazy to detemine when the quagmire came, and on whose watch. Interesting to note that we had almost 2000 dead before we actually made a move to war. Ask your parents what they were willing to tolerate.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:26 amIn fairness to the supporters of a time table for withdrawal:
The reported problem is that the insurgents will lay low until we leave, and then attack as soon as we are gone. I do not believe that that would be the case...but if it were true then it would be reasonable to suggest a withdrawal date, resulting in a lessening of attacks, and allowing the progress to accelerate. If the US/Iraqis were given a period to proceed of say , 2 years, then even if the insurgents racheted up again after our departure, it would be too late for them.
Calling for a withdrawal date is not a bad thing, but it appears that the administration is unconvinced as to their own progress, and are unable to determine a date.
The pressure would be off Bush, if tonite he announced a token withdrawal of 20,000 for November. It should also be noted that of the 139,000 present, the percent of soldiers in 'hot territories' 3of the 18, are about 40% of the force. The other 60% is conducting reconstruction, and do not face the day to day danger that the press seems to believe falls on all the soldiers there. You could get killed there anytime, of course I see that it was reported that 24 citizens of Chicago were shot in various areas in one day, in CHICAGO. Maybe we should be doing peacekeeping there.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:01 amMark:
You are indeed a a brave and valiant member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists. I will sing your anthem proudly (sing to Battle Hymn of the Republic):
From the forums of ever-y blog
To the screens of your TV
We will fight our nations battle
Whilst we tap upon our keys
We show off magnetic ribbons
So our contribution ain't just free
Just don't ask to actually join the fight
'Cause we're the 101st FE
You do the nation proud.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:55 ammark,
You have vascillated quite a bit here and I think it shows how difficult a position we are now in. In earlier posts you came off as defender of Bush and being in Iraq and in others you are trying to justify withdrawal. Do you think that the Bush adminstration has been positive for our country or negative? Do you think that the Iraq war was the right thing to do or a mistake?
June 28th, 2005 at 10:59 am"The reported problem is that the insurgents will lay low until we leave, and then attack as soon as we are gone."
Actually, that sounds pretty good to me. For one thing, we lose fewer soldiers. For another, we leave when Iraqis are capable of securing their own country, as the President and others have said. So if the terrorists wait until we leave, they will find themselves attacking a well-armed, well-equipped, well-trained Iraqi force that is more than capable of handling them.
That is the plan right? Because the only reason not to have a timetable is if that's not the plan. But if Bush is not lying, if that is the plan, then a timetable is simple. You need X Iraqi soldiers, it takes Y amount of time to train each one, we leave in X times Y. Both X and Y are knowable, as Rummy would say.
Mark, are you suggesting you prefer the insurgents attack us?
June 28th, 2005 at 11:08 amAlso, moveon.org did not oppose invading Afghanistan. Strictly speaking, Karl Rove may not have lied, but he sure got his supporters to believe something that isn't true.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:09 amSo you have no answers for anything, but you have time to write a song. I guess you are doing you part.
Given your success in the 2004 elections, you'd think you'd come up with a new strategy or insult to garner votes, but apparently this was the best manner for you to spend your time.
Not really surprising-maybe you should make crayon pictures and send them to your representative to show you insight.
I would really like to tell you what I think of you, but it concerns me that I may offend others of your ilk.
As to the 101 fighting keyboards-just doing our part-as you believe you are doing yours. The only difference is that in realm of ideas, your side is about as aware and useful as Terri Schiavo post 1993, and you success so far has been...? Nothing. Given the lack of any relevant ideas, the results are far from surprising.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:09 amJay-
mixed feelings-I've never been 100% in favor, really 55-45 at the start. The progress seen in Lybia, Lebanon, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq has cemented the 'possiblity' that there is a chance for success and has bouyed my optimism for achieving striking politcal change in the ME. I have searched for an alternate solution, but it escapes me.
As to the intel-in hindsight, we gather intel that proves something, no what disproves it. That the intelligence was, and always has been centered around providing information, was not an issue then, but clearly is an issue now. Our inspectors were thrown out in 1998, so we had no on the ground reporting. Congress has made multiple decisons in the past based on the belief that Saddam was seeking WMD's. I don't think Bush/Cheney falsifed info, but when you ask the intelligence community to provide relevant info, you'll get everything under the sun. Elements of the intelligence were disproved, but looking at the total, their conclusion was not crazy.
I don't think that the intelligence was faked, it came down to a judgment, in walks Tenet, states its a slam dunk(he wasn't the only one) and presto off to war.
The failure of the dems to even broach discussion of the UN and the role it played in enabling Saddam to avoid the sanctions removed any crediblity they had. Just as Bush may have focused on narrow info, the dems are seeking to do the same thing.
I do see someone whining about Rove, please...McCauliffe said about as many inflammatory things daily. If Rove wants to behave as Dean, Gore, and other crazy people, let him. He is right in the sense that there has been a lot of evalautions about the 'quagmire, failure, terrorists are winning' without any facts. (interesting that Bush believed bad intell, but when the critics of our situation speak, they don't even offer sources.) Kennedy has never been to Iraq, so I doubt he has talked to any soldiers recently-they are there-go ask them. In dismissing our chances of success publicly, it does encourage the insurgents. In prolonging the war, by pumping up the 'success of the insurgency' AND PROVIDING NO FACTS TO SUPPORT-I find this action insulting and incredibly damaging. I was a moderate beofre this whole thing started, but the whackiness of the far left is making me into a conservative. There seems to be a strange courtship, rahter similar to "you are either with us or against us' in the democratic party. The loss of soft money has elevated the radicals in the form of 527's. They now control the democratic message.
Does Ted Kennedy stating publicly that we are in a quagmire serve as a recruiting tool, encouraging foreign fighters to enter the conflict, tipping the balance. Absolutely yes. So when he makes the comments and no one from his party calls him out, rove may not be that far out of line.
I'd love to vote dem-I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, and an atheist-but this is not the democratic party with diverse ideas and intelligent discussion, this is the childish mob, wishing for September 10, 2001. Your party and that day have already passed.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:38 amBut Kerry lost, so you Republicans OWN it. Dems have NO power and this is Bushes war, so figure it out for yourselves.
Jay, that's a classic Unamerican comment. If you wonder why the left is getting more and more marginalized, it's because of attitudes like this.
We should all be working together, but you don't want that to happen. You'd rather than American lose so that you can stick it to the Republicans.
Again, that is Unamerican and it is sick.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:42 amTom-to answer your question in short-
Iraq a mistake? I don't know.
Bush a positve? yeaa....nnaaaa, ehhhhhh......probably a good thing.
If Iraq is complete when he leaves...he did a very good thing. If we are not successful, and that 'we' includes every american, we are back to September 12th-knowing our time of peace is over, and not having any plan to address it. It does seem that the progressives do not want this to be successful, or for Bush to be deemed successful for their litany of reasons. Just as the Iraq war is creating more terrorists, the dems in their criticism of the war are making me a Republican. I'm not the only one either. Look at the turnout Bush got for 2004, that was a shocker.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:49 amMark-
The song I write took approximately 45 seconds to author. I think you know well that is all the time you warrant, and if not, your erratic ranting should serve as proof that is all the time you deserve.
When you offer something aside from apologies for your hero Bush, or accusations levied against anyone who doesn't share your love Bush, then perhaps you may have given me something to discuss with you.
Until that time, you shall sow what you reap.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:15 pmGo to Iraq Mark, please.
You are a great keyboarder now show us what you can do with a machine gun.
I'm sure you will do well.
P.S. If you could read, you would understand that 500,000 real live people will be at the White House on Sept. 24th. I guess good keyboarding and good reading comprehension does not go hand in hand.
Good luck in Iraq...Please write.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:21 pmGEAH,
For those of us that opposed this war from the beginning and did everything we know how to prevent it, disowning the Bush admins lies and not assuming responsibility for this war seems reasonable to me. Bush is not my president and Iraq is not my war. My other point (and it's part of the context of my statement) is that Democrats have NO power to implement changes in the current policy.
You think this is unAmerican and I thinks it's reasonable. The Republicans have done taken the devisive, our-way-or-the-highway approach to all matters. They've chosen unillateralism and stubbornness, dishonesty and propaganda. I refuse to be a party to that. Do you blame me?
I would rather that Republicans weren't so stubborn and power-hungry but that isn't the case. I would rather that there wasa balance of power but there isn't. I would rather that they were pragmatic and not so rigidly ideological but they're not. I don't want any further harm to come to our soldiers who are just doing their jobs, I want them home. If that makes me unAmerican in your opinion, than so be it.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:21 pmExcellent post, Jay.
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:29 pmGEAH, I admit that I was being a bit of a smartass and flippant with that comment....but certainly not unAmerican.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:50 pmI'm with Jay and John, My only concern about Bushie is getting him impeached. That is the most patriotic thing a person can do for their country.
As for Iraq, oh well, they have a government let them figure it out. If they don't like it then they should include impeachment in their consititution.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:51 pm[...] of our government.’ Even our allies are beginning to suspect what we say, he charged.<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/27/during-vietnam-rumsfeld-criticized-administration-for-credibility-gap/">‘It’s a difficult thing today to be [...]
June 28th, 2005 at 2:11 pm[...] ity of our government.’ Even our allies are beginning to suspect what we say, he charged.‘It’s a difficult thing today to be in [...]
June 28th, 2005 at 2:11 pmP.S. If you could read, you would understand that 500,000 real live people will be at the White House on Sept. 24th.
If I had a dollar for everytime I hear someone say we'll get x number of people. Great idea-this will do what exactly?
"For those of us that opposed this war from the beginning and did everything we know how to prevent it, disowning the Bush admins lies and not assuming responsibility for this war seems reasonable to me. "
me to, it is a good excuse for a lack of plan and failure to incorpaorate it with any other ideas, including terrorism, the ME, the UN, and others. You will never be relevant until you regain a majority...which is never.
"Democrats have NO power to implement changes in the current policy."
Submit a resolution calling for x. The problem is that a majority within your party does not want to be clubbed by any resolution that they do or don't sign. Submit it at any time. Same goes for the house.
"propaganda"-'quagmire' isn't propoganda? It sure as hell is cheering the insurgents on...comparing our soldiers to nazis and pol pot isn't propoganda that is being used? I expect both sides to use propoganda against each other, when they use it against our military, they cross a line.
"I would rather that Republicans weren’t so stubborn and power-hungry but that isn’t the case." The republicans are governing in a vacuum. No democratic ideas for anything...any bill submitted can be countered by another submission. They are far from powerless.
Wanting our soldiers to come home is the most noble desire that anyone could posess. If it is a personal belief, OK. If it is to gain a political advantage, the perpetrator(s) are traitors. Pat Buchannan, has a reasonable dissent. Duncan(R) of TN also comes to mind as one opposed to the action. I respect both of these gentlemen.
" I’m with Jay and John, My only concern about Bushie is getting him impeached. That is the most patriotic thing a person can do for their country." Not concern for the troops or success in Iraq...Susan is pretty much telling you where a lot of dems stand. Nothing matters except getting Bush. She may want to be more selctive in her use of the word 'only', but I doubt she dare recant. She would say and do anything to get Bush, end of story. Would 5000 dead soldiers make her happy if Bush had to resign in disgrace? Thanks for augmenting my case.
"As for Iraq, oh well, they have a government let them figure it out." Great plan. Just the mindset we need for our politicians. And you think people are going to rally around a party made up of this narrow focus. Talking about not learning from history-the impeachment deal hurt the GOP more than the dems, so not to be outdone, they behave as republicans? Beautiful.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:15 pmThose who opposed the war from the beginning are important to all of us, so the world knows we're not all lemmings, or of the mindset that mark professes. If Iraq fails, it will be on Bush's decision alone, and Republicans will be desperate to blame Democrats. Ted Kennedy's comments are a recruiting tool, John Kerry lost Vietnam. Same BS. Abu Ghraib was and is the best recruiting tool jihadists could ask for. The invasion of Iraq is the second best.
Expect to hear a lot more drumbeat about how Bush's political opponents want the war to fail. As things get worse, they will find more opponents' comments to blame. The storyline will be that we would have won except liberal lips sank all our ships. I wish I were kidding. That's their Plan B. Karl Rove's comments were mere prelude setting the stage.
FYI mark, I think it would be great if all Bush's predictions about the mideast came to pass. I'm not so enamoured with being "right" that I want to live in a world of dictators and terrorists.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:19 pmmark you seriously need to go to thomas.loc.gov and actually look at the bills submitted by Democrats.
Would you like passenger planes to have missile defense systems? Costs as much as three weeks in Iraq. Barbara Boxer proposed it.
What kind of bill are you looking for, anyway? What could Dems submit that would satisfy you? Propose we cut off aid to Saudi Arabia in retaliation for their terrorism? Done. Condemn Uzbekistan? Done. Call for the capture of A.Q. Khan? Done. Education reform for the mideast? Proposed. It's called prosecuting the war on terror. Bush should try it sometime.
Seems you're claiming Dems have no plan when in fact you haven't looked to see if they do or not. Now tell us Bush's plan for killing terrorists in Pakistan.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:24 pmMark sure does have a lot of time on his hands...
Perhaps he should put his money where his mouth (or in this case fingers) is and enlist in the military.
In the amount of time it has taken Mark to spin wildly out of control attempting to substantiate his fundamental theory that Democrats are bad and Bush and the Republicans are the light, he could have:
- Performed a sweep and clear of an Iraqi village
- Manned a checkpoint
- Tortured, I mean interrogated, 3 "terrorists"
- Disarmed several roadside IEDs
So Mark, with all this time on your hands, and given your point of view, get out to your nearest recruiting center and enlist. After all, with military recruitment rates faltering as badly as your ability to make a coherent argument, Uncle Sam really does want YOU.
So how about it? You gonna be a man and go off to fight the war that you so dearly love and advocate from the safety of your home, or are you going to keep on earning your stripes (yellow) as a chickenhawk?
June 28th, 2005 at 2:33 pmBarbara Boxer proposed it.
One senator. Once again get a 'group' of Senators and it will have 100 times the impact. One senator makes it look like legsilative grafitti.
Looked into this 500K march, puhleez.....
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/messageboards/lofiversion/index.php/t50770.html
check this site out....it lists ALL the reasons to protest. my favorite of many?
Stop the Racist, anti-Immigrant and anti-Labor
Offensive at Home, Defend Civil Rights.
or the answer website-
http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=6140
This is too rich. So tell me, champions of the powerless dems, what elected official is joining in? Apparently even you own party wants to keep this group at a distance. I believe the last answer rally in nyc, didn't break 100,000. Absolute genius to hold it while college is in session.
susan, I made the mistake of taking you seriously, go back to lithium-the new stuff isn't working.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:42 pmJohn-have you noticed how the press is having a hard time finding soldiers to support the left? They even agree with some of your points, but they also realize that you don't give a rat's ass about them. If nothing else it is important to remind the progressives, who are not serving in the military, that they don't want to be used as political pawns.
I've had this conversation a million times so for 1,000,001... define chickenhawk.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:47 pmKnow your GOP shill
Lesson 246: The Ad-Hominem Attack
Often, when a GOP shill trolling on a progressive message board lands himself in a hailstorm of Bushian proportions, he will resort to the classic Ad-Hominem attack.
e.g. Susan, I made the mistake of taking you seriously, go back to lithium-the new stuff isn’t working.
The Ad-Hominem attack can be identified as a purely superficial assault on the personality, character, mental capacity, etc. of the person and/or organizations that has invoked the rancor of the GOP shill.
Typically, this is a last line of defense when the shill finds themselves in trouble whether due to their lact of factual information and/or rhetoric, although sometimes the shill may employ this tactic as a first line of defense.
Next Lesson: The Straw Man
June 28th, 2005 at 2:50 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
29 dem chickenhawks? Seems even your party has a majority of those...
June 28th, 2005 at 2:57 pmMark: Are you able to cite any substantial evidence to bolster your claim that the press is having a hard time finding soldiers to support the left, or this just another gem plucked from the GOP talking points?
Similarly, I would be delighted to have you grace me with the ingenious logic that leads you to believe that someone who is a pacifist and cares very deeply about human life (and hence is anti-war) "don’t give a rat’s ass" about troops being used as political pawns in a large game of global Neocon chess. If nothing else it is important to remind shills such as yourself when your duplicitous nonsense just doesn't make any sense to those who have graduated High School.
And for the millionth time, a chickenhawk is what you are. Or, to make the definiton far less subjective, a chickenhawk is a term often applied to public persons - generally male - who (1) tend to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who personally (2) decline to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:58 pmmark,
Far be it for me to insult your intelligence, but seriously, does your knowledge of our foreign policy go further back than our illegal invasion of Iraq? Do you understand the root causes of 9/11 and have you ever heard the term 'blowback'? Do you understand that Arabs have longer memories than who the most recent famous pro athlete was that just got convicted on CourtTV?
Why do you believe that we were attacked on 9/11? Was it because they hate our freedoms as we have been told repeatedly by the rattling robots of the right? Or were there more concrete reasons, more direct and tangible fallout from some of our policies in the Middle East?
At what point do you think that it's fair for Iraqis to fight an occupation? Would you be fighting if we were invaded by ...say...China, and they occupied your home?
June 28th, 2005 at 3:02 pmJohn, great posts, please come back often.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:06 pmmark,
Here is an accurate list of who served and who didn't. Please pay close attention to the names of those that did not serve, I think you'll recognize some of them.
http://awolbush.com/whoserved.html
June 28th, 2005 at 3:09 pmJohn-
you calling me a chickenhawk is one of the biggest ad-hominem attacks, perpetrated by the dem bloggers.
"The Ad-Hominem attack can be identified as a purely superficial assault on the personality, character" ...seems you conclusions about me meet your own definition. Next you'll tell me you are on the side of good and it is ok to use against the 'evil' republicans.
It should be worth counting the number of ad-hominem attacks made against me at this site. Cutting one's nose off to spite your face?
"Propose we cut off aid to Saudi Arabia in retaliation for their terrorism?" snicker, snicker...you mean buy their oil and then don't pay them? What aid?
Best line? Tom's
"Those who opposed the war from the beginning are important to all of us". I completely agree. coscientious objectors would make the best citizens in the world. but People filled with hate and who hold it in their heart are not true conscientious objectors. Hatred is the emotion of children, not adults. Every dem argument based in anger is falling on deaf ears. Logic should be tha basis for arguments...when I hear about rallies, it seems to bypass discourse, with shouting and screaming. I'll never be like these dems.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:12 pmAhh how the truth hurts. I love watching weasels like mark squirm and lie and fumble all over themselves. mark, you have no credibility.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:15 pm...and John is right. If you want to know the true definition of a chickenhawk, have a look in the mirror buddy.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:16 pmWhy do you believe that we were attacked on 9/11?
Because every previous attack was not dealt with. Because we left 100k soldiers in Saudi Arabia after GW1. Because we support Israel. Because we never responded for the embassies in africa, Somalia, the Cole, because we gave money to the ME, expecting nothing in return. Because we were seen as weak and unwilling to respond.
Or were there more concrete reasons, more direct and tangible fallout from some of our policies in the Middle East?
Becuase we took their land in 1948, and gave it to the Jews? Because we continue to support the occupation of Palestine post 67? Becuase we provide military equi[pment to Israel?
OR perhaps....
The society is in decay, their population swells, but there is no middle class to aspire to? Because if you are poor the only answer is to enter a Hadrassah who will condition you to hate America? 20 hijackers killed 3000 people. Even if the number of terrorists were on the decline, 1000 could kill 150,000? The reason there is no middle class is that loyaty is to family, over a nation's people. Establish representative democracy and it will fall like dominoes-sorry Henry.
No, I have no idea why we were attacked.
I did see elements of the freedom fighter jargon for the foreignors fighting in Iraq. News flash, these would be the same guys we would be fighting in Afghanistan, under far worse conditions and without any exit strategy. You have no understanding of military, if you cannot graso that shaping the area for conflict is more important than any other pre-war prep...Rummy got this one right.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:25 pmMark-
Allow me to blast your false notions - yet again.
You calling me a chickenhawk is one of the biggest ad-hominem attacks, perpetrated by the dem bloggers.
First off, let's qualify what actually constitutes an Ad-Hominem attack. The short definition is that which is appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.
If I were trying to dismiss you personally based on the term "chickenhawk", then in fact your false assertion may have veracity.
Unfortunately for you, my assertion that you are a chickenhawk isn't an attempt to avoid logic or reason in lieu of a personal attack, it IS the logic and reason as to who you are and why you post the nonsense that you do.
Therefore is both logical AND reasonable to surmise that you are a chickenhawk based on the aforementioned definiton. There is absolutely nothing about this line of rationale that attempts to obfuscate either logic or reason. It is merely a matter of fact.
If you take it personally that I am calling you what you are (which I liken to you taking offense if I call you Mark), then I suggest the following:
- Stop advocating and being a proponent for war from the safety of your home and/or job
June 28th, 2005 at 3:27 pm- Go to the nearest recruitment center and grab an M-16 and ship out to the Middle East
No plans.
This is why you are giving the government away to the Republicans...I'm trying to help, because I do like a two party system. Right now, we don't have one.
No definiton of chickenhawk?
Did FDR serve in the military? Abraham Lincoln? Looks like by any defintion you just insulyed two of our greatest presdients. I'm sure my military experience exceeds theirs.
Once again define chickenhawk...because I actually might prove not to be...but that is irrelevant. Every citizen is entitled to their opinion and vote. Unless of course you include the dems in 2000 having overseas ballots from the miltiary discounted in florida.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:31 pmmax cleland, a chickenhawk?
He did vote for this thing.
Still waiting for your definition, or plan...I wont' hold my breath.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:33 pmIn post #119, John defines chickenhawk. Of course just as you ignored the fact that we provided comprehensive plans from Democrats yesterday for Iraq and the "war on terra", you ignored that post. YOU ONLY HEAR AND SEE WHAT JIVES WITH YUOR REALITY.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:39 pmJohn's plan for everything-
- Stop advocating and being a proponent for war from the safety of your home and/or job
- Go to the nearest recruitment center and grab an M-16 and ship out to the Middle East
(If it means anything, I would have voted against a nebulous resolution by history it is a mistake to give that authority. I probably would have abstained.)
Regardless, your candidate in 2008 will have voted for this... genius.
"Mark: Are you able to cite any substantial evidence to bolster your claim that the press is having a hard time finding soldiers to support the left, or this just another gem plucked from the GOP talking points?"
Don't see any Ron Kovic hitting the news. the best you have is the Jersey Girls. Find it interesitng that Kristen Britweiser states she voted for Bush, but her father is the democratic mayor of Mannasqaun, NJ. I've seen some of the family of survivors confront her and another of her ilk Mandy(?). sorry to see them make Kristren cry...but I guess that isn't news worthy.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:40 pmTalk about using 9/11 for politcal reasons...
jay -I posted 119.
Guess again.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:45 pmSo mark, if that's true, it tells me two things about you. 1. You do in fact know the defintion of chickenhawk, yet you keep pretending that you don't so you are being dishonest and a weaselly. No suprise there. and 2. You are pretending to be someone/something other than yourself. Which confirms the conclusions from 1.
Another fine job of making yourself look like a slimeball a**hole.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:55 pmAngry? at a computer and someone typing on it? Your losing it....
actaully, I love watching fools throw out a label and then are unable to back it up with a definition. Be careful what you type and who you call a chickenhawk.
So who is this Ron Kovic? This John Kerry? somebody who the anti-war left can rally behind?
Will they make it to the rally Sept 24? I will be in town for that one, by some strange chance.
Any chance I missed it being defined earlier? We know it is not a 119...talk about crediblity issues. Bet you are going to blow your o-ring soon.
June 28th, 2005 at 4:04 pmyou're digging yourself into an even depper hole of obscurity. Sad.
June 28th, 2005 at 4:07 pmG'Day Mark:
See #88 (above):
I answered your question, now would you please answer mine. What uniform did you wear?
-Sky
June 28th, 2005 at 4:09 pmSomeone is confusing anger with ridicule......
June 28th, 2005 at 4:11 pmMark-
You clearly cannot read...go back to post #119 and you will see that I clearly defined the term chickenhawk for you. If you are wearing your GOP-colored glasses that don't allow to see the truth or deal with the reality in front of your face, then I cannot help you there, but don't feign stupidity (perhaps you aren't feigning) and act like a victim waiting for their injustice to be righted.
YOU posted #119? Guess again chumpy, unless your name is John.
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong?
And a question for you Marky Mark, are you actively enlisted in the military?
If your answer is NO (which I strongly suspect is the case) then you ARE in fact a chickenhawk. If the feathers fit, then wear them...
You see, to paraphrase your hero George Bush, either you are with the war or against it.
Me, I was and always will be against war. You on the other hand are for the war, so then BE for it. Go out, enlist, and put your ass on the line like all the other soldiers who are inadvertently for the war.
Otherwise, shut your piehole you warmongering coward.
June 28th, 2005 at 4:14 pmahhhh.....
Take alook at the abc poll-bush approval 48%. Interesting if he was running for reelection....despite 69% who believe our losses to be unacceptable.
What's this?
52% believe it has contributed to our long term saftey?
58% think we should keep our focres there?
Don't worry, there are some nuggets for you to mine as well, here's the link grouchy...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll062705.pdf
June 28th, 2005 at 4:27 pmTwo years school annapolis, two years west point, 8 year commitment after my my graduation. Won't give you a year, but I have served in two conflicts, technically, but only one is legit.
June 28th, 2005 at 4:31 pmPlease define chickenhawk...I love hearing idoits talk about something they don't know. That's one of the reasons I egg you guys on...
June 28th, 2005 at 4:34 pmMark:
RE: # 139: "Two years school annapolis, two years west point, 8 year commitment after my my graduation. Won’t give you a year, but I have served in two conflicts, technically, but only one is legit."
Please explain. When/where did you graduate and what uniform (if any) did you wear?
-Sky
June 28th, 2005 at 4:51 pmSky-
Mark is deliberately ignoring your specific question that may or may not prove the veracity of his dubious claim of being military in lieu of the vaguaries he has offered up for us.
But what can you expect from a guy who continues to ask (even if rhetorically) what the definition of a chickenhawk is.
If in fact he IS military (which is impossible to really know, and undoubtedly provides a convenient smokescreen for him) then he is entitled to the opinions he is expressing on the grounds that he would be in fact a professional warmonger.
In this case, I would still have to respectfully disagree with his positions, but also remind him that serving in the armed services doesn't automatically qualify him as a historian and/or political science guru.
On these latter two, he clearly leaves much to be desired, although I wouldn't be surprised if "by chance" he produces a PoliSci BS and/or History MFA in his next post.
Sit back, and enjoy the show.
June 28th, 2005 at 5:01 pmYou are the one with the curiousity, have one of you military friends explain it to you. I feel foolish stating it, becuase you can accept and then it seems like bragging on my part, or I have to 'prove' it and I haven't figured that one out, without a searchable name. I prefer you making assumptions anyway...it is what keeps me coming back. Please assume that I have never served, I'll never provide the proof to you, and given your skepticism you will find it easy to judge me.
It is vague to non-miltary, which is the point. I am not active at this time, so you can still call me a chickenhawk. If someone has served and holds an alternate view, I do not wish to have conflict with them. I have gained and lost in war, but since I'm still pro-war and if it makes me a war-monger, so be it...I love being called chickenhawk-and in some sense it is true, I'm done with it. Never again.
"doesn’t automatically qualify him as a historian and/or political science guru."
Actually, no individual is qualified to believe his opinion to be fact. There is too much to know. 'Why' is always the hardest to answer. There is no occam's razor for war, there are reasons for and against. IF you can measure them within yourselves you'll find a dichotomy which will set you free. IF you can only be for or against, without be able to weigh it, you will always be a lump of flesh, blown along by what you knew and not looking for what you will find.
Timetable and/or withdrawal(not exceeding 25,000) within the next 60 days- a fact?
I wouldn't know.
June 28th, 2005 at 5:24 pmMark-
This is your most forthright post thus far, and I am delighted to see the progress you have made.
I am not active at this time, so you can still call me a chickenhawk.
Fine by me.
But since I’m still pro-war and if it makes me a war-monger, so be it…I love being called chickenhawk-and in some sense it is true, I’m done with it. Never again.
Very compelling stuff. I mean that, and not fascetiously, either.
Actually, no individual is qualified to believe his opinion to be fact.
By God, you may not be a GOP shill after all, since I've never heard one utter these words.
Well Mark, I think I've finally got a pretty good read on you. It must be tough to for someone in you shoes to see how horribly botched this Iraq War has been (and needlessly so).
For anti-war folk such as myself, we have no illusions about what has transpired, and we don't expect much from this administration. But for pro-war military folk such as yourself, it must be awfully difficult to swallow all the bitter pills this administration has given you.
I can't empathize with you, but I sure do sympathize.
June 28th, 2005 at 5:51 pmG’Day Mark:
I don’t feel the least bit foolish, I'm a vet (USA-69/73-MOS: 91-C).
RE: ChickenHawk (short definition): spineless blowhard with no combat experience who consider military intervention the only option.
For the record, it takes no guts at all to wave the flag and support a military conflict like our cheerleading fearless leader, our first (and hopefully only) self-proclaimed war president, when you are several time zones away from harms way. Suffice it to say, doing so renders the speaker with a serious lack of credibility.
Saying that you are not ‘active’ at this time implies that at one time or another you were ‘active’. Active? Do you mean active duty? You have gained and lost war? Would that be stock dividends?
RE: “Actually, no individual is qualified to believe his opinion to be fact. There is too much to know. ‘Why’ is always the hardest to answer. There is no occam’s razor for war, there are reasons for and against. IF you can measure them within yourselves you’ll find a dichotomy which will set you free. IF you can only be for or against, without be able to weigh it, you will always be a lump of flesh, blown along by what you knew and not looking for what you will find.�
Wow! I’m going to have to have my wife read this; she teaches English, technical writing and critical thinking; maybe she can interpret that paragraph for me. On the surface it looks as though your freshman philosophy class made a real impression on you.
RE: “Timetable and/or withdrawal(not exceeding 25,000) within the next 60 days- a fact?�
What exactly are you asking?
One simple question – What uniform did you wear?
-Sky
June 28th, 2005 at 6:09 pmJeebus! I leave for few days, the site gets a beautiful new look, (very nice), we have thread with 145 posts and the GOPstapo operatives have a new target. Keep it up, boys and girls, we will wear them out.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:34 pm"Please define chickenhawk…I love hearing idoits talk about something they don’t know. That’s one of the reasons I egg you guys on…
Comment by mark  June 28, 2005 @ 4:34 pm "
Idoits? This is like when the old men and boys defended Berlin while Chimpy, I mean Adolph, hangs out in the bunker.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:38 pmI think they will wear thin before we wear them out. GOPstopo.
[...] t's the "Islamofascists" and "Liberals" that hate Democracy and all America stands for.
“Accurate judgment is pred [...]
June 29th, 2005 at 12:06 amI watched segments of the Bush speech last evening and was (again)quite disappointed with the media and its behavior. Up to this point, the media remains a sort of cheerleader and a tape-recorder [slash] video-recorder. When major media outlets do not pursue or do not choose to pursue what the government leader(s) state in public--it produces an environment where the 'information' which may be in fact more opinion than fact actually becomes facts because it is not challenged for authenicity.
It was explained rather succiently to me that the real issue is one of access. Meaning that if reporters or the news bureaus they represent are seen as caustic or anti-administration--their calls to these same individuals will be lessen. Thus the kid glove treatment.
Whether this point is in fact the major cause of the depletion of investigative journalism, I'm unsure, since it seems as well that today--Americans can choose to watch the news or read papers that confirms what they first have accepted as reality. The media then has become the place to tune in as if watching a TV drama, stoked by behind the scene producers who flame the partisan bickering for ratings. Gone are the days when say a NBC and CBS would collaborate on a story looking only to share their collective resources to look beyond the words of their government to find out if what they said was right or wrong. The competition would be first and foremost to break the story behind the story rather than to pick a side upfront. In such an environment, ratings were driven by a desire to be the first to uncover the truth (or as close as it could be determined) and get it out on the airwaves or in print as accurately as possible.
But, unfortunately today the desire to get the story right is stymied by news formats that seems to beckon its viewers to stay tuned to hear more evident that "their side" is right and the "other side" is wrong. CNN to their credit did do away with Crossfire, which conceptually is sound, but leaves it audience only with the same conclusions that they possessed after watching the program. In the segments I would watch, neither side was able to concede or recognize the other's opinion as valid. And this slide into a forum where compromise is viewed as heresy did little to open up a dialogue where one side listened while the other side talked. And lost in this entire environment was the recognition by both sides that there exists a common reality that both sides can see and then choose to address for the common good of the country.
In my humble opinion, those of us who are opposed to the war in Iraq must not ignore that while Rome burned, our spin doctors in Washington [both dems and repubs] were getting assistance from the media that no longer seemed to be interested in being a 'watchdog'. The repubs are shown saying this and the dems are shown saying that, but no media organization is to be found to explain it to the public that evidence leads not to the repubs or dems answer but to a grey or to an orange. Thus, a common and persistent cycle of never ending bickering. And of course great theatre for the media who lies in wait to record the endless childlike scenes.
Lastly, the media I believe has drawn some seriously wrong assumptions about the American people. A previous correspondent noted correctly when he asked, "Do you know why we were attacked on 9/11?" The media has not reported on the implication of this question: that is; what has/is our government doing in the name of democracy and what are the consequences to the native people who live and reside in various remote places that we intervene? It seems that perhaps they believe we aren't interested or can not fanthom the answers or possibly these matters are best left for formats that can thoroughly address them in better detail. Perhaps, those things are best handled in the numerous think tanks that exist, in which they can easily summarize once these groups have reached a conclusion in their 1-2 minute sound bite formats.
But the obvious problem becomes that a nation like Iraq comes into our living rooms, if like in a magical maestrom, and we find that suddenly we have an enemy. When in fact, the history of the US and Iraq dates backs more than 30 years. But what the media does is to treat us like little kids who must only be told some things and not other things. They state in unison the government's message: they hate our way of life, they hate our freedom, they hate our flag and the democracy it represents. But, no where does the media give a complete and accurate representation of our country's prior inventions and what activities occured to make them hate us. If Donald Rumsfeld called France, Germany and some others old Europe than today we can call NBC, ABC, FoX and CNN old new organizations.
The blogs are where the investigative journalists have gone to report the "news". The slick presentations we see today is as much about T&A as it is about news. Not that I have any issue with attractive women and men, but the superficialness of it all is phoney. Hollywood and tabloid news has taken over the news and sent the serious hunter for information to the internet. The assumption is that we give out small blocks of news followed by 'missing white women and little kids', washed out movie and sports stars. They offer up to the trough personalities like Nancy Grace, opinionated blowhards who prey on the misery of the celebrity set for ratings. Although Micheal Jackson's troubles may be of a curious nature, it would be more interesting to have the media track the details of Halliburton and how our $250 billion of public monies has been spent and is going to be spent in Iraq. But a blonde bimbo pitbull screaming Scott Peterson is a murderer every 5 seconds or that MJ is a child molesting freak is far more important to our taxing paying lives. And somewhere in the near future is another celebrity who will crash and burn and Nancy Grace will be there to narrate every excruiting detail of the gorry mess.
While the real important news is short and spotty and rarely if ever is followed up by serious and critical news reporting. This perhaps in their thinking is too boring and expensive, so let's just repeat what we have heard, repeat it again and use attractive people to smile big smiles in the camera. I watched FoX recently and there in their morning show was an attractive female flanked to her left and right by two attractive men bantering on about a whole lot of 'nothings'. Are we really to believe these folks are going to seriously uncover facts about Iran, Iraq, SA or any other pertinent issue of the day? Of course not, they are the image that the 'old News' feels sells to the public. The media distrust in what they believe we should digest is really our biggest lost to this democracy.
We are told they are the enemy, so to some they are the enemy. As Reggie Jackson once remarked that he was the straw that stirred the drink[Oakland I believe, not NY]. Our media is the straw that has been stirring this mess for their own selfish benefit. It is beyond the time we push the drink away and sobered up.
Vince1157
June 29th, 2005 at 12:42 pmI don't have time to read all 150 (!) comments here, but to comment on a few things.
Mark asks:
"If the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is close enough, then would it be fair to call Kennedy a murderer and Byrd a racist?"
yes, it would be fair, but that's really irrelevant unless you also ask: what would those labels tell you? If the vietnam analogy is relevant (and, oh boy, after watching apocalypse now redux the other night, the similarities are mounting in my opinion), then what that tells you is that we should learn from experience. the administration has TOTALLY learned from the vietnam experience about certain things (maintaining incredible secrecy, never admit to mistakes, never ever talk about the possibility of early withdrawal, always maintain that victory is absolutely essential, don't let body bags be shown on TV, never attend a funeral, use the patriotism card to keep the corporate press in line and not questioning, delay confirmation of damaging stories for several days or as long as possible to dissipate ourtrage and press attention, always keep on the talking point du jour - cheney violated that the other day though, and so on).
But the real lessons of vietnam, to mis-quote apocalypse (since I don't recall the exact quote), is that we will never ever win a war in which our troops are lounging in sadaam's pool, while the insurgents are willing to give up their lives in an instant to get our troops out. we will never ever ever "win" this way. THAT is the lesson of vietnam, and it would be useful if we would recall it.
as for the point of "Chahmed Ahlabi" (cute) on whether Riummy is losing it:
watch the C-Span coverage of his testimony before the senate armed services committee last week, specifically the questioning by Byrd. That guy might well be a racist, but he has become a tireless and absolutely critical advocate for congressional oversight and authority.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:23 pmhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006890
apparently the most respected American paper
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005070510450002729381&dt=20050705104500&w=RTR&coview=
agrees that the dems have zilch of a plan for anything.
Meanwhile, Rummy?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rumsfeld1jul01,1,6698843.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
As far as the topic of the site?
Vietnam was a Civil War. The end would require one side beating the other.
Iraq is a newly formed representative government. There is nothing remotely similar, although the domino theory that drives it, is far more compelling than Kennedy's domino theory. If the new government breaks down, it was for naught. The honest question, that will never be answered honestly-"Would the democrats wish for victory, resulting in a grand march for democratization in the Middle East, or would they rather see failure and promise, that if elected, would keep this from happening again?"
The logic that the most outspoken critics wish for failure is not arguable. There will be an election in 2006 and 2008, don't make the same mistakes that were made in 2002 and 2004. Voters have settled in, and are watching Iraq. Fro a majority of the country, there does seem to be a plan. Until that changes the democrats are ceding crediblity of Foreign Policy. Get a plan.
July 5th, 2005 at 1:40 pmTerrorists—It’s Them or Us
Who can really believe that our occupation of Iraq is going to help anything in a positive way—Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, US ground commanders complain about the huge shortage of troops to quell the insurgency, terrorist cells are gro...
July 21st, 2005 at 3:02 pmTake your time to check some relevant pages dedicated to... Thanks!!!
September 21st, 2005 at 11:32 pmTake your time to take a look at some information dedicated to... Thanks!!!
September 25th, 2005 at 1:29 pmIn your free time, check some relevant information in the field of...
October 9th, 2005 at 11:33 amfree natalia wired pussy movies
Think Progress »...
October 18th, 2005 at 10:33 amspawns insolent:overseers:underworld?Jura inhibitory ladder pausing bars
November 25th, 2005 at 9:16 pmunaware curvature.sweeping.aberration sexton economizing
December 28th, 2005 at 11:07 pmcoward Valhalla converging alight Thermofax ... Thanks!!!
December 31st, 2005 at 5:59 amtooler membrane,adjures Thalia envision!dotes
January 12th, 2006 at 12:08 amfruitless dissociating domineer firmed.Mobil Shanghaiing?symphonies Hess
January 17th, 2006 at 3:56 amBack to Rumsfeld: When he was ambassador to NATO during the Vietnam war, what did he do? Is there any copy on his ACTIONS! during that time? Did he have any say in the carpetbombing of Vietnam? My email address: heartofhearts2001@yahoo.com
November 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pmmotorola keypress ringtones keypress motorola ringtones v60i
Tonight free alltel music ringtones download ringtones to cell phone from pc
March 14th, 2008 at 4:39 pmfree metro pcs phone ringtones
Contact motorola razr v3 ringtones free nextel real ringtones
March 15th, 2008 at 3:50 am