November 14, 2006 8:53 PM
Huffpo scores an internal memo from Fox News Vice President John Moody!
"Let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress."
Read the full memo here.
You may recall the dozens of memos from Moody revealed by Outfoxed instructing staff to tilt the news for the Republicans.
The memos supposedly had stopped, but apparently not.
Fox News Internal Memo (11.14.2006)
Next Entry: Changing the definition of marriage (11.17.2006)
Previous Entry: How America Will Lose Weight (11.13.2006)
Dave E.:
This is outta control. If those Fox chuckleheads are going to be this blatant about being the alter ego of the White House PR wing, they need to be subjected to governmental scrutiny as such.
There is no place in this country for this insidious propaganda, other than the verymost extreme margins. If Fox is going to stump this expressly for the conservative point of view, they need to be absolutely forthcoming about it once and for all. Granted, memos like this are essentially smoking gun evidence, but George and Sally Not Enough Time In The Day don't usually have enough time in the day to make well-informed discretionary choices about information consumption.
Time to drop the hammer on Fox News and get them to own up to their partisanship in bold-faced type splashed across their neat graphical screen leads: "Fox Conservative Commentary (Sprinkled With Selectively Selected News): George W. Bush Rox!"
Wed Nov 15 2006 3:23 AM
cpurick:
Well, we could use this opportunity to ridicule Fox for wanting us to know the insurgents would prefer to have Dems in power...
...or we could use it to consider why insurgents would prefer to have Dems in power.
Aside from Fox's desire to cover it, it certainly is an interesting premise.
Wed Nov 15 2006 8:42 AM
Dave E.:
Sunni's and Shiite's are killing each other because they really wanna stick it to the Republicans? What an amazing ability to delve directly into the minds of the insurgents and extract their deepest intents and desires. And to do it all from your couch, in a different continent even. Amazing. It's like magic!
So I, at least, strongly disagree that Democratic damage control of the failed Bush doctrine somehow plays into Al Qaida's hands. Quite the opposite really.
Your snappy talking point starts with a false premise, but go ahead and believe it if it provides a means for your pre-determined partisan ends.
Al Qaida in Iraq is real, but we brought it there, and it has nothing to do with the greater problem of sectarian violence which is ripping the country to shreds. Al Qaida simply, and quite predictably, seized on Democratic wins for propaganda purposes.
I suggest right wingers start doing this: try getting a head start thinking about the possibility that - gasp - occupying Iraq was doomed from the beginning, and this is just the next evolutionary step in getting the hell out. This valid consideration has nothing to do with "wanting the US to win or not;" that sort of thought should have prevailed before occupying Iraq. No, it has everything to do with "realistic and pragmatic thinking" about the untenable situation that is getting people killed. My primary evidence for this point will always be Bush 41's post-Gulf I actions: he did not take Baghdad because he knew what would happen. He knew all of this would happen, because he listened to the rational, non-idealogues who understood that pre-occupied Iraq was nothing but a powder keg.
Anyway, thinking critically, it would be hard not to admit that the Bush policy has done nothing but showered fundamentalist jihadists with emboldened purpose and vastly more extensive recruitment capability. George W. Bush has become Al Qaida's wet dream.
But critical thinking doesn't play too great a role in snappy little partisan talking points like the one above, so it's no surprise to see those O'Reilly-isms still floating around.
Wed Nov 15 2006 2:01 PM
Dave E.:
One final point.
That memo says, "be on the lookout for". This even goes beyond partisan bias. Those words speak toward an active desire to craft what the news actually is.
Fox doesn't even function like one would imagine a typical news organization would: it isn't reacting to newsworthy events and developing an informative story around them, it is express orders to mine for stories with a pre-determined conclusion ("be on the lookout for"). To think, they don't massage newsworthy events toward conservative bias - they outright mine for news that supports their own simplistic partisan inklings ("who must be thrilled"). I really shouldn't be surprised, but still...Fox has really out-shammed themselves with this. They're an even bigger joke of an organization than I suspected.
And finally, check out how the talking point changes from Fox VP to the wingnut in this thread: it moves from "who must be thrilled" to "insurgents prefer Dems in power".
Hypothesis becomes conclusion. Like magic indeed.
Wed Nov 15 2006 2:23 PM
cpurick:
I'm not big on the conspiracy theory which holds that Bush is evil, that Fox is his mouthpiece, and that I am under their spell. It's hardly that complicated.
Suffice it to say that there is an alternative viewpoint to "Iraq was doomed from the beginning." Fox simply allows for this alternative instead of dismissing it out of hand.
The truth is that we've hardly made a concerted national effort to win in Iraq -- certainly nothing with the economic hallmarks of a country at war.
US casualties in Iraq border on 5% of the casualties sustained in Vietnam, Americans have made no perceptible sacrifices at home, and as a function of GDP the deficit is actually pretty nominal.
Your talk of certain doom is the real propaganda -- maybe you need to be watching Fox instead of CNN.
Thu Nov 16 2006 8:05 AM
Dave E.:
Fox News VP, John Moody: "Let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress."
You're right. It isn't a complicated theory with dispositive memos like that.
There are alternative viewpoints to everything. Like "we just haven't tried hard enough to win in Iraq". It's convenient and somewhat persuasive, and most importantly, it doesn't take away from the sacrosanct idea of American Exceptionalism.
Indeed, the new neoconservative position is that Bush simply messed up the prosecution of the occupation. In other words, the people responsible for crafting this suicidal middle east policy now seek cover in a negative position impossible to prove. "It's not our fault it wasn't prosecuted correctly."
Hey, whatever makes you feel better. You're not over there dying for a half-assed effort.
note: I'd take real exception with calling this deficit spending 'nominal', but economic statistics can be notoriously manipulated.
Fri Nov 17 2006 1:25 PM
cpurick:
"Let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress."
Not "Let's try to find if any insurgents are thrilled by a Dem congress." Not "Let's only talk to insurgents who are thrilled by a Dem congress." Instead, he says "Insurgents must be thrilled by a Dem congress." Well are they thrilled or aren't they? And if they're thrilled, then is that news or isn't it?
You said "Al Qaida simply, and quite predictably, seized on Democratic wins for propaganda purposes."
That's funny. It implies that insurgents don't really care about the election results but are simply portraying the results as a victory for their side.
In fact, I think they really *are* happy about the election results (not just as propaganda). And despite your mischaracterization of their happiness as a facade, I think you know they're actually happier too.
Why do you suppose that is, I wonder???
Fri Nov 17 2006 6:11 PM
Dave E.:
I guess I suppose it's because I've always wanted the terrorists to win. You got me.
Sarcasm aside, get comfy in those margins with opinions like that because that's where foolish insinuations like that now belong.
Two words you use quite a bit: "you think". Mighty big qualifiers, they are.
And, exactly who are you referring to when you say "insurgents"? Sunni death squads? Shiite death squads? Foreign jihadists? Because the election means many different things depending on which group one refers to. Your love for simplicity doesn't quite fit into your "insurgents are happy Dems won" routine.
I was specific: Al Qaida in Iraq, the group we ushered in and seated to the table. Because of their goals, they reacted rationally to election results that were no surprise to me.
You are not specific, and you presume to know what goes on in the minds of all kinds of different people. Because you latch on to one predetermined assumption and simplify complicated facts to comport to it, you appear intellectually irresponsible.
Do you presume to believe all the Iraqi's killed since the election are still happy Dems won?
Seriously, your position reminds me of a Cardozo quote: "The thought behind the phrase proclaims itself misread, when the outcome of the reading is absurdity."
You need to find a new empty talking point to defend.
Fri Nov 17 2006 7:53 PM
cpurick:
You're babbling, moonbat.
I can only wonder why you would want to suppress the terrorists' obvious glee in the press. Maybe you could get Fox to broadcast some GIs getting sniped at instead.
Do you honestly think they're *not* happy about a Dem congress???
The only people over there who aren't happy about this shift are the innocent civilians who are going to get slaughtered in the crossfire when you gutless wonders engineer our withdrawal.
"I guess I suppose it's because I've always wanted the terrorists to win. You got me."
I know.
Fri Nov 17 2006 10:44 PM
Dave E.:
Only the stupid would seize on an intentionally stupid comment, proving their own stupidity. A sucker born every minute.
If you feel so protective of this ridiculous war, I suggest you sign your cowardly ass up now and take the place of someone less shrill. Until then, you will always be a coward holding a cowardly position.
People have been getting slaughtered in Iraq for years now. You somehow believe that as long as Americans are included in the dead, it makes you feel better. That's the reality. Mindless pride addicts like yourself are the reason why thousands more die for an obvious mistake. That's blood on your hands as you sink into your cushy couch to rail at that liberal news bias, and that's about as gutless as it gets.
We opened the pressure cooker. I'm only saying it doesn't make any more sense to let our own die in the midst of bloodthirsty factions settling religious scores that date back over a thousand years. Again, if you feel strongly enough about it, here's a helpful link for you:
http://www.army.mil/Finally, your ability to place yourself inside the minds of terrorists still amazes me. It's an omnipresence that is quite admirable. Or crazy. Just because your assumptions feel right to you, does not make them correct.
Send us a postcard when you get to Iraq, coward.
Fri Nov 17 2006 11:38 PM
cpurick:
Thanks, moonbat, but I already have my Air Medal. Where's yours?
Nice attempt to change the subject, though.
"your ability to place yourself inside the minds of terrorists still amazes me."
You're only amazed because your distorted world view prohibits you from seeing what's obvious to everyone else.
This is a great opportunity for you to search the entire range of Democratic options for one -- just one -- that the bad guys *won't* like.
Since you seem determined to hold out the possibility that insurgents might *not* be happy about the Dem congress, I'll let you give one example of something Dems might do that the insurgents should be afraid of. That would be a hoot.
Maybe after you think about it for a while you'll realize that the Dems and the bad guys have been on the same side all along.
And they really appreciate your unwavering support!
Sat Nov 18 2006 8:21 AM
Dave E.:
"Maybe after you think about it for a while you'll realize that the Dems and the bad guys have been on the same side all along."
And this is why C-prick's opinion means nothing.
The wingnuts live!
Sat Nov 18 2006 2:24 PM
cpurick:
This is a great opportunity for you to search the entire range of Democratic options for one -- just one -- that the bad guys *won't* like.
Since you seem determined to hold out the possibility that insurgents might *not* be happy about the Dem congress, I'll let you give one example of something Dems might do that the insurgents should be afraid of. That would be a hoot.
C'mon Dave. Are you just going to call me names? Wouldn't you rather provide that one example that proves how superior you are???
Can't you even name *one* thing the Dems might do that wouldn't make life better for insurgents???
The wingnuts win!
Sat Nov 18 2006 5:18 PM
Dave E.:
Two words: reductio absurdist.
You're assigning an absurd position to defend. It's proof of how non-existent your argument is. If you wanna drag superiority issues into this, that's up to you. Sounds like a personal problem.
But, you basically have no argument, and demand others to defend an absurd position you've created. This reaffirms how big of a wingnut you are, and shows how well-deserved the label is.
Under Republican leadership, Iraq is a clusterfuck. Blair admitted as much the other day. This is reality. It's Bush's war, it's a miserable failure, and Republican leadership has gotten every-single-prediction wrong. They've been wrong about E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. Anyone ignoring this and making others defend ethereal, absurd positions that are totally irrelevant, is a fool.
Another label that is well-deserved. Keep posting to continue to prove it.
Sat Nov 18 2006 5:41 PM
cpurick:
So I guess Moody's premise -- that insurgents will be happier with a Dem congress -- is quite valid after all. Now we can move on to why you think that should be suppressed.
Are you planning to call me more names, or would you like to provide an explanation, moonbat?
Sat Nov 18 2006 7:12 PM
Dave E.:
"Are you planning to call me more names, or would you like to provide an explanation, moonbat?"
Read that out loud to yourself, then take your own advice hypocrite.
Everything else I refer to my last post.
Sat Nov 18 2006 7:44 PM
CPUrick
This is the way Dave operates, calling you names, berating you using his “education” to justify his holier-then-thou attitude, never realizing for a split second that instead of receiving an “education” he in fact has been indoctrinated, proof of this is he is now towing the Democrat party line of “if you weren’t there/if you didn’t do it you cant comment” well Dave I’ve never been run over by a car or on drugs, does that mean I cant comment on it?
Oh and maybe dave, if YOU can crack open that steel skull of yours for a split second and allow this suggestion in, read “Men in Black” by Mark Levin a Constitutional lawyer that worked in both Reagan administrations and is the founder of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
Her's the link for the book: http://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/0895260506/sr=8-2/qid=1163940889/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-9195483-0783069?ie=UTF8&s=books
And click on my name for Landmark Legal
Sun Nov 19 2006 8:01 AM
cpurick:
I'm going to return now to your first ridiculous post, moonbat, where you categorized Fox's efforts as "insidious propaganda."
Aside from a bunch of defeatist, liberal elitist bullshit, you in fact have said nothing to refute Fox's position that insurgents prefer to have Dems in power, or to explain why examples of this should be suppressed in the media.
I can't help but note that your first comment referred to "George and Sally Not Enough Time In The Day," perhaps the best evidence I've ever seen that "the little people don't have the means to digest the news properly, and so it's better that we just not tell them things that might misconstrue." Wow, you must work for CNN! I'm sure many people choose to vote for liberals just so they'll be free from having to draw their own conclusions. You can't get that kind of service from just any political party, you know. Talk about full service!
Then, there's the matter of the insurgent viewpoint. You say I "presume to know what goes on in the minds of all kinds of different people." Those are pretty interesting words, coming from someone who feels obliged to screen everyone else's news, don't you think?
Of course I gave you repeated opportunities to demonstrate a single example of something Dems might do that's contrary to the insurgents' agenda. You'll never get a better opportunity, as an elitist, to demonstrate your superior insights by showing everyone else, right here and right now, why insurgents have anything to fear from Dems.
You said you "strongly disagree that Democratic damage control of the failed Bush doctrine somehow plays into Al Qaida's hands. Quite the opposite really." *Quite the opposite*. So decisive! So certain! Obviously it must be something only liberals can see, but whatever it is, apparently the rest of us are too dumb for you to even waste your time explaining it to. Because you haven't done shit to account for what, on earth, Dems could conceivably do that won't work out to the insurgents' advantage.
Nice diversion there, BTW, asking me to explain "which insurgents" I'm talking about. Ooh, it's too complicated for me, because everyone knows that only the liberal elite can deal with complicated concepts like "Sunni death squads," "Shiite death squads," and "Foreign jihadists." Funny, you jumped right on the Fox memo with that big generalization, and then halfway down the thread you got pretty stupid about picking nits over who the insurgents are. Maybe you should have stopped right at the beginning and said, "Well we really can't pick on Moody without knowing what kind of insurgents he's talking about..." LOL!
Then there was your ridiculous "insurgent propaganda" argument: Of course the insurgents seized on the Dem congress *for propaganda purposes*. Nice deflection, opening up the possibility that insurgents don't *really* see this as a victory for their side, they're just *saying* it is.
Was that really presumption, or is it just easier than admitting to the worthlessness of your contribution in this thread, to wit: Moody's right -- insurgents of all stripes know they're better off with Dems in office, and for some reason you don't think the common folk need to be aware of this.
And you have the balls to call Fox propagandists???
A couple more things. You don't know shit about my position on Iraq. I would not have gone there, but they don't give me the big bucks to make that decision. It's made by people with access to much better information, and at the time we decided to go there were a lot of Democrats drawing the same conclusions. Their memorable quotes in support of the war pepper the internet, and they don't need to be repeated here. Hindsight is worthless for assessing decision-making, because by definition hindsight includes knowledge not available when actual decisions are made. All that matters is whether they made the best decision with the information available when they made it. Given the same information, a lot of Dems made the same decision. A lot. Maybe you should be harder on them for not standing their ground and presenting your case. (BTW, that includes Bush 43 having information that hadn't been available when Bush 41 agreed to the ceasefire, rendering your "primary evidence" pretty meaningless.)
Finally, if you have a problem being called moonbat, moonbat, then you might want to start at the top of the thread to find where the ad hominem began. I believe the first derogatory term was "wingnut," hypocrite.
Oh, you can still explain how your original thesis, about Fox propaganda, holds true by explaining how Moody's wrong about insurgents being thrilled, or why the public shouldn't know this. But if I was a flaming liberal, I'd probably duck out by trying to find some other fault with my opponent, his wording or his agenda, because anything's better to a liberal than finding out that he's wrong. (I think.)
Sun Nov 19 2006 9:35 AM
Dave E.:
Despite repeated articulations, you still don't seem to know shit about my position even though its stares at you from your monitor. Understand it properly, and we won't waste anymore time.
One Last Time:
Fox news needs to level with people about their bias, expressed in neon through that memo, which shows their efforts to slant news are an active part of their executive management structure. Fair and balanced, that news network is not. I only demand honesty. This is why your premise doesn't agree with me. You even called it "Fox's position"...my position is, they shouldn't have a position if they claim to be an objective news source. This is my fundamental assertion.
From that point onward, you've floundered around this assertion of mine, struggling to paint me as an angry ideologue and the ever tiring "terrorist sympathizer." When in doubt, question your opponent’s patriotism. Once again, telltale signs of a weak argument. And if we're keeping track like 3rd graders, I believe you were the first to do that. But again, all of your accusations mostly flow from your fundamental or willful misunderstanding of my issue with Fox News. Be objective, or advertise your bias. It's a simple proposition, your parents should have drilled this into your head since birth, and -hey!- you even get to have integrity. That memo is an ethical breach of titanic proportion. I find it near incredible this could be misunderstood, but, it says a lot about the force of partisan invective littered throughout the last remaining 31 percenters.
As far as Dems go, they have been spectators in this endeavor into mad scientist foreign policy; this is a GOP mess, and this is where the greater focus should be to effect positive change. This government needs oversight. This suicidal foreign policy needs creative conflict. And if you really want to resurrect the intel controversy, I'd point anyone to the Pentagon's politically-appointed "Office of Special Plans" as the Q.E.D. for intentional manipulation of low-grade, faulty intel to make a case then presented to Congress.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/index.htmlI'm no fan of Dems. They are largely corporate-controlled also (there are noteworthy exceptions, as I don't believe all Republicans are without ethics...not all of them, anyway), only to a much lesser degree than these GOP hired hands. I am a fan of Constitutionally-charged oversight in government however, so for that reason I'm quite happy the monopoly is busted. America realized this too, and voted to shuck the GOP stranglehold on power in convincing fashion.
Judging by this thread, I'll let any readers arrive at the pretty self-evident conclusion as to who here is more credible. It has mostly been characterized by varying degrees of you railing at liberals and Democrats, quickly falling back to stick that trusty 'elitist' pejorative (as if somehow being educated is bad) on me. Using generalizations when convenient and abundant mischaracterization of my words and intentions. You've demanded I defend a position you created to disprove a Fox News exec's partisan assumption and subsequent marching orders to an ostensibly objective news source about those insurgents, who all just must be dancing in the streets over the Dem victory weeks ago. Some impressive mental gymnastics indeed.
If you really demand proof of the state of mind of an array of violent factions half-way across the world, just keep watching Fox News, waiting for all this evidence you're so convinced is out there.
Which, incidentally, still hasn't turned up weeks later. I would hope the resources of Fox coupled with their inability to produce news of all these "thrilled insurgents" dancing in the streets should suffice to ease your preciously underutilized mind.
But go back, re-read my position on Fox News, and maybe then you'll be able to rest easy. Or not. Like I said, whatever makes you feel better. In my opinion, you've sufficiently discredited yourself for me to stop wasting my time by continually restating my position.
Cheers, wingnut.
Sun Nov 19 2006 4:44 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
"Aside from a bunch of defeatist, liberal elitist bullshit, you in fact have said nothing to refute Fox's position that insurgents prefer to have Dems in power, or to explain why examples of this should be suppressed in the media."
Only one problem with that comment nutty. There’s nothing to PROVE that statement either. Yet its paraded about in the memo as if this is the defacto position, so lets be on the lookout (ie. manufacture if necessary) the news to back that pre-made position up. Kind of like your fucking war you neocon lemming. FOX works on the same broken principle, create a conclusion and work backwards.
And Dave's also right. Same thing i've said before. Turn in your keyboard commando stripes and enlist you chickenshit. And don’t go for a comfy airforce job. Do some grunt work for a change. Be an army of one! Or are you one of those 'yellow ribbon on your s.u.v.' fartknockers that talk a big game but wouldn't risk your own life on this misbegotton adventure.
Point of fact is that most intelligence assets and many authors on the subject came to the conclusion that REPULICANS, ie. ESPECIALLY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION was a BOON to Al-Quada and Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq was a GIFT to Osama, who never imagined the US would be STUPID ENOUGH to do it. Republican leaders, republican policies, republican zombies and intellectually inept morons such as yourself and other from parts of New Jersey are the greatest gifts and enablers for the terrorists. This is what FOX should be reporting.
If the Dems ACTUALLY do manage (and i dont believe they will because they're as bad as Reps on foreign policy) to pull troops out of Iraq, and the national insurgents will collectively band to repel the foreign jihadists, there may yet be hope. But so long as you 'stay the course' retards keep spinning the broken wheel and blaming the poor results on failed execution or the typical scapegoat, 'the media.' then your doomed to enjoy your countries greatest failure on a magnitude many times worse than it is now.
Happy hunting nutboys.
Sun Nov 19 2006 6:39 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
Oh and NJ, your one to talk about 'the way someone opperates'
I posted this when a majority of Americans thought Bush 43 should be impeached, but i think Jim's system blocked it. But ill repost it now to show everyone how 'YOU' operate.
...............
Well, I gave him all the chances in the world.. now I’m going to knock him over the head with his own rigid, unwavering, unabashed, damaged train of thought.To: NJGuardsman
From: Mike of the Great White NorthDear NJ,
I hope this note finds you safe on your umpteenth tour of duty in Iraq, making the world safer from dictators, terrorists and planting the seeds of freedom and winning hearts and minds, all while ‘staying the course’.
Oh wait… nevermind.
I could make a multitude of comments, observations or jokes about any of the above but I’m gonna stick to what I came here for. You stubborn refusal to accept reality and the conviction of your feelings over facts. Well, it’s time to use your own arguments against you.
On [Thu Nov 4 2004 02:01 PM] on the blog post [Horribly Devastating.php] you wrote such infamous quotes as:
” The American people have given this president a mandate..”
“..proves to the world that WE ARE UNITED behind our President in the war on terror.”
“..American people collectively knocked you off your high horses and showed you where the real power in America is.”51%, and you came to all those conclusions above.
Everyone then collectively tried to reason with you… me, Dave E., Tom, Johan… you’d hear none of it. 51% of the country, the greatest 51%, the moral 51%, the up to date and educated on the issues 51% of the country voted and spoke with ONE VOICE for everyone else. That was fine by you.
Then we had the Ned Lamont fiasco… where he took the whopping 54% of the vote. But in this case what was good for the goose was not so good for the gander. You even had presence of mind to remind all of us good folk that we “..all like to pound on my head <4% does not make a mandate make!” [Sun Aug 13 2006 10:00 PM – Political Earthquake.php]
Here I actually thought you had matured, grown as a person, able to reflect on the past and critically think! I offered the hand of friendship, agreed with your post because you HAD MADE an intelligent post. We did berate you for it, it would be suspect of us to not make the same allowance for the Lamont victory. But like a person going to a priest for confession, it’s not the amount of penance the priest assigns you, or that you spoke to a priest at all, it is that you actually feel sorry/guilt or grief for the wrong you caused and are truly looking for forgiveness. To ask a priest to forgive you for adultery at 10am when you have a appointment with your neighbors wife in an hour does not atone you for your prior misdeed, in fact it condemns you further. And this is the path you chose NJ…
Consider you final remark on the matter while responding to my post. Here it is for clarity so there is no error in judgment…[Thu Aug 17 2006 11:49 PM - Political Earthquake.php]
“I stand by what I wrote when Bush won in 2004.”I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry for it, in the end I had to flip a coin, laugh, print off your remarks and your flip-flopping, twisted logic for all my friends to see that there are actually people like you that do exist on this planet. It is truly terrifying to consider there are many more ‘critical thinkers’ like you that have amassed in the heartland/biblebelt/jesusland of America.
In case all of this was too much for you to disseminate, let me ‘dumb’ it down for you..
-Bush wins 2004 election 51%
-you claim it is a mandate and all Americans are united
-we counterclaim it is not, you call us sore losers
-Lamont wins by 54%, we claim it’s a mandate
-you disagree and use our claim that 51% was not a mandate
-I agree with your logic
-you destroy your own argument and lose claim to use the percentile defense with your defense of the original claim.I find it sad that I felt I have to do this. You already knew all of the above, so did everyone else. But seeing it laid out from start to finish, seeing how you get from point A to B, the depths you will go to… it’s like watching a healthy cow die from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. You really feel for the animal during the final stages.
So now we have 51% of the public wanting the ‘war’ president impeached. 51% NJ. I am now going to use your logic NJ. 51% of the American people, are speaking out in one voice, truly united. Let’s all drop the partisanship now that we’re united and go do the right thing… impeach the m()!#%7u(|<#r!
Or should I start feeling sorry for you?
Sun Nov 19 2006 6:46 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
Holy Shit!!
It looks like Blair finally took off his neo-con blinders!
http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Pakistan/10083860.html
Some notes to point out. Wonder how 'new jersey' will respond to Blair?
Blair says...
-"support for aid projects, promoting moderate Islamic role models and a lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were key to defeating extremism"
hmmm, and i thought it was because islamo facists hate your values? Oh and theres that damn Israel/Palestine thing i kept talking about before... yup, Blairs just servin up a bowl of terrorist helper aint he.-"global extremism is an ideology that exploits grievances. So what we have to do is at the same time as we are taking on the ideology, we have to take away those elements of grievance"
hmmm, could have sworn jersey didn't think there was a cause & effect relationship involved.Guess Blair hates Amerika now too dontcha think NJ?
Sun Nov 19 2006 9:36 PM
cpurick:
Man, the moonbats are oozing out of the woodwork now!
"There’s nothing to PROVE that statement either. Yet its paraded about in the memo as if this is the defacto position"
Dude, the memo is not news, not a plan to fabricate news, and not a plan to search for something that's going to be an exception to the rule.
Unless you've been under a rock for the last three years, not listening to democrats run on the cut and run platform while Bush promises to stay till he wins, what Moody describes is in fact the "defacto position."
"Be on the lookout" does not mean "manufacture if necessary," you moron. Where do you idiots come up with this stuff?
Moody fully expects insurgents to be thrilled, just as I would, and he's just telling his reporters to cover the story if they encounter it.
I've posted three or four responses here inviting one of you useful idiots to show what the Dems might do that stands to make things worse for insurgents in Iraq. For all your assertions that insurgents might not be thrilled as Moody suggests, you're incredibly short on examples -- even hypotheticals -- to support it. The real question is what kind of idiot must one be to *not* think insurgents are ecstatic over these developments. You guys are gift-wrapping them a victory.
And look at this bullshit: "your countries greatest failure." One could only characterize Iraq as worse than Vietnam for purely political reasons. I'd like to know when in history any force has achieved a fraction of what we've accomplished in Iraq with such minimal loss of life.
Even your own ideal scenario, that of national insurgents banding to repel foreign jihadists, shows just how close we are to actually winning in Iraq.
And I'm perfectly satisfied with my own military service, thank you -- you don't get an Air Medal unless you log actual combat missions.
But it's telling that you guys think anyone who's pro-war should climb in the trenches with our soldiers. It really shows the bleeding heart at the root of your spinelessness.
In fact we send those boys over there specifically so that you and I don't have to face the threat here. You're worried about their lives? I wouldn't be. I'm more worried for soft, mushy liberals having to face the threat here if we stop taking the fight to the enemy. If we bring those boys home for any reason, it should be because your lives aren't worth it.
Sun Nov 19 2006 9:49 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
Moonbats. The mating call of the loser.
"what Moody describes is in fact the "defacto position.""
-umm no. Moody wasn't talking about Dems 'cut n run' (i thought Bush said he was never stay the course?) strategy. He's concluding that insurgents would be thrilled. Now he's asking everyone down the chain to find shit to corroborate. Cheney pulled this shit at the CIA, what did that get you? Curveball, that’s what."Moody fully expects insurgents to be thrilled, just as I would"
-because your both deficient in minerals and nutrients that power the brain. Again here we have to undo the 'simplification' of grouping all fighting under 'insurgent'. The national resistance would of course be happy your gone, that’s why they've fought of course. But Al-Quada in Iraq would be devastated. Without US 'occupation' of Iraq, any support for it being there dries up. Its powerful recruitment tool would vanish. Indeed, a full US withdrawal would be the death knell to Al-Quada of Iraq. But the truth isn’t newsworthy... just trying to make Dems look like Al-Quada’s friend by saying 'insurgents' are thrilled."I'd like to know when in history any force has achieved a fraction of what we've accomplished in Iraq"
-Invaded on false pretense
-Enabled terrorism to flourish where none existed
-Giving Iran more influence in the region
-Destabilizing the entire Middle East
-Presiding over more Iraqi civilian deaths then during Saddams entire despotic rule
If this is an accomplishment, I’d hate to see what you call fucking up."anyone who's pro-war should climb in the trenches"
-damn right. You're so full of presidential bluster and bravado, cheerfully sending 'those boys', nameless faceless troops who until recently weren't even acknowledged on their way home in transfer tubes. I FIRMLY believe this war is wrong on all levels and I show my support for the troops by asking that not another one die in vain and would never fight or sign up for it. You have the temerity to tell others to die for something you believe in but wont fight for. Spineless indeed."If we bring those boys home for any reason, it should be because your lives aren't worth it."
Very classy indeed. I believe the appropriate response to this is, you can go to hell.
Mon Nov 20 2006 3:14 PM
cpurick:
"He's concluding that insurgents would be thrilled."
Correctly so. Please explain why they would not be thrilled. Once again, you pass up an opportunity to give an example of something the Dems might realistically do that *any* hostile group in Iraq won't like.
"If this is an accomplishment, I’d hate to see what you call fucking up."
Well, I do believe that when the new congress convenes you're going to get that chance.
"I FIRMLY believe this war is wrong on all levels..."
I'm sure you do. And that's why you want us to lose it out of spite."and I show my support for the troops by asking that not another one die in vain and would never fight or sign up for it."
Yeah, but you'd be ready to put on the uniform in a moment's notice if only the cause was right, wouldn't you? You conscientious objectors crack me up.
You're right. Bring 'em all home -- your life's not worth dying for.
Mon Nov 20 2006 5:45 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
"Please explain why they would not be thrilled"
Reading isn't one of your strong suits is it. I thoroughly explained why Al_Qauda would NOT be thrilled to US troop withdrawals. One more time for the lemming patrol. OSAMA WANTS YOU IN IRAQ. It puts US troops in killing range, its on their home turf and the perception/reality that you are occupying Iraq, a powerful tool to demonize you in the middle east. One need only look to Israel to see how brutal occupation is a boon for recruiting fanatics. Is that thorough enough or do i have to get you a colouring book and some crayons?"Well, I do believe that when the new congress convenes you're going to get that chance"
You may very well be right. I don't hold my breath when it comes to Democratic hawks running the show any more than Republican hawks."you want us to lose it out of spite"
You lost the war long ago due to a myriad of reasons. its your stubborn refusal to play by the rules of reality that floor me. Or maybe you'd like to tell me exactly what winning the war would entail. My guess would be flattening Iraq."put on the uniform in a moment's notice if only the cause was right"
If my country's very survival was at stake, foriegn troops crossed our border and began enslaving and murdering my fellow Canadians and forcing them into camps and prisons and would alter my way of life then your damn right i would.Bah, your final remark smacks of a simpleton mind with no mental capicity for reason. They were never dying to protect me in the first place. No protection was neccessary since we all know there was no 'grave n imminent threat' from Iraq. No sonny boy, they're dying for a lie. They were there to implement the plan of the neocon high order and line the pockets of the uber rich. But you go right on ahead and cheerlead someone else son or daughter into the meatgrinder. And when they die and someone asks "What did they die for?" you'll come out and say that common rhetorical device people like you belt out without thinking. "They died defending freedom!" to which i would respond...
"Who's freedom?"
Mon Nov 20 2006 6:31 PM
cpurick:
"OSAMA WANTS YOU IN IRAQ. It puts US troops in killing range, its on their home turf and the perception/reality that you are occupying Iraq, a powerful tool to demonize you in the middle east."
Translation: "Insurgents ought to fear Dems because they might withdraw US troops, denying Al Qaeda of the opportunity to kill them." How Orwellian.
That's just comical. Yeah, I'm sure Osama's terrified of that. It's hard to believe anyone who can reason like that could ever complain about "propaganda."
You must realize that same logic can be used by any retreating force to "declare victory and go home." Congratulations, liberals now have an all-purpose excuse for avoiding all future conflicts. Brilliant.
Tue Nov 21 2006 2:16 PM
cpurick:
Maybe you should just stop posting, in order to deny me the opportunity to show how stupid you are. LOL.
Tue Nov 21 2006 2:27 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
LOL. Good one dude. Thats hilarious.
Almost as hilarious as being lectured on stupidity about a guy who believes Fox News is Fair n Balanced. Bwahaha. Thats almost as funny as the joke about those misplaced WMD's, a where did they go? HAWWWWHAWWWWWWWWWW. Oh god im gonna crack a rib. Oh wait, they were moved to Syria. BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh and forget that killer one, about being greeted as liberaters.... HAHAHA, or that one about the insurgencies last throes? MWAHAHAHA. Don't forget those hilarious 'turning point' moments, saddams dead kids, his capture, the elections, al-zarqawi. Boy were those a riot... hahahahah.
Man you'd have to be a fucking tool to have believed any of those!
Oh yeah, wait a minute.....
Tue Nov 21 2006 6:55 PM
cpurick:
So you complain about the slow progress in Iraq as you express your sincere opposition to the war, but we're supposed to believe that your desire to cut and run is actually an offensive strategy because it foils terrorists who want to kill our soldiers? God, that's rich!
Considering this whole thread is about propaganda, why can't you just be honest enough to say you want to surrender?
Isn't it hypocritical -- and propagandist -- to be trying to sell your viewpoint as a bizarre victory instead of admitting that you want to retreat from a battle you just haven't got the testicular fortitude to fight?
Even Dave wasn't stupid enough to make that truly Orwellian argument. It certainly splashes cold water on the original premise that Fox News' position is incorrect or even noteworthy.
It's good to see you guys fighting fire with fire in the war on propaganda -- oops, I mean fighting news with propaganda in your war against America. That's more accurate.
Wed Nov 22 2006 8:06 AM
NJGuardsman:
-"global extremism is an ideology that exploits grievances. So what we have to do is at the same time as we are taking on the ideology, we have to take away those elements of grievance" hmmm, could have sworn jersey didn't think there was a cause & effect relationship involved.
Mike,
-Where was the cause to the effect that in 1978/9, 51 Americans lost their freedom for 444 days?!?! The ONLY reason they were let go was because Reagan let those towel heads (yes I called them towel heads) know he was going to come for ‘em!
-What was the cause to the effect that when a cruise ship was hijacked and a crippled old Jewish man was thrown over board like so much garbage! And what did the world do about it? Oh that’s right he’s a Jew – an oppressor of those poor peace loving Palestinian people that never did anything to anybody, that old man deserved it! (Your point of view – remember “We Have a Jewish problem)
-What was the cause to the effect being a Pan Am 747 exploding over Scotland - and what did the world do about it?
We were NOT in Afghanistan or Iraq then what was their motivation? ANSWER: their sick/twisted/3000 yr old interpretation of their own holy book that they take to mean that “Allah” has given them permission to kill those who don’t live the way they do - plain and simple!
Peddle that poor oppressed (the MAN is keepen ‘em down) bull shit to some one else!What did India do to warrant a train bombing – did THEY deploy to the middle east?
You tout these polls when you know good & God Damn well those polls can be manipulated by how the questions are phrased and what political leanings the people who are asked have.
So tell me how many conservatives were asked? How many Rebubs, how many libertarians, how many whites, blacks, Hispanics, women, legal or illegal immigrants, what part of the country was polled?“Bush wins by 51%” He did not once but twice and you all insult the American people because of it, I think that’s a mandate (so yes I guess Slick Willy is too).
“you call us sore losers” how many challenges were made against the election results? How hard and long did the Dems try to suppress absentee & military votes?
“Lamont wins by 54%” he won a LOCAL election and where is he now? So if he had a mandate does Lieberman have one now?OK you want it you got it YOU have a MANDATE!!!! Does that make you feel better??? Are you HAPPY NOW!!! - IMPEACH HIM!!! IMPEACH the PRESIDENT – I want to see it happen I want to see how far it goes!!!
AND you want to why you have a mandate? Because the Repubs didn’t/couldn’t articulate their positions the ways that Dems did!!! That’s why! You want propaganda how about commercials in the south by people like Andrew Young saying that if Repubs won, it would be worse then the 60s when they were hit with water cannon(s) and had dogs turned on them!
On top of that let me REMIND you of something:
CONGRATS!!!!
To the victors go the spoils; the Dems/Libs articulated their points and the American people responded.
So pop the champagne/mimosa/JD party on – you all deserve it!
So now YOU have no excuse, now the people will hold YOUR feet to the fire!
Republicans lost both houses more so then Democrats won, Repubs lost BECAUSE they wanted to be more like Democrats – Dems won BECAUSE the fielded “CONSERVATIVE” “CENTRIST” candidates and even with that you all won some if not most of these races with the slimmest of margins BUT a win is a win so GLOAT GLOAT GLOAT.
But notice that the Repubs didn’t fight in court didn’t demand recounts didn’t delay, they accepted their losses graciously as opposed to their Democrat counterparts when the tables are turned.
Is this our first loss, no (nor will it be the last). Am I disappointed – YES, am I disillusioned about Repubs – YES, am I going away to cry in a corner, throw up my hands and say it’s all lost, am I going to hang it up? NO! NO! NO! In fact I’m digging in and I will fight harder because I believe that the Conservative is the best way: smaller government, lower taxes, control of my own retirement (SS), Capitalism/Free Market and tax revenue (up 250 Billion) and (145 Million people working), unemployment (4.4%), wages rising at about 7% prove it.
This is what I wrote when the Dems won.
“Yet its paraded about in the memo as if this is the defacto position, so lets be on the lookout (ie. manufacture if necessary)” – So now who’s in whose head?!?!? You’re making shit up pure and simple! Fox is not CBS! But apparently you are – oh wait you go one better then falsifying government’s documents you imply where no implication exists change your name to Dan.Which brings me to the simple fact that you didn’t “care “about that act of bias, what was the quote-oh yeah “Be objective, or advertise your bias” Tell me Dave does that quote go for CNN and the rest?!?!
-I TRIED TO REASON WITH YOU
-I TRIED TO BE CIVIL
-I’VE TRIED TO “MAKE NICE”
-I’VE SHOWED YOU WHERE YOU WERE WRONG ON THE PRESIDENT’S POWER TO DEFEND THIS CONTRY (Sorry Dave, I’ll take Mark Levin’s word over yours on Constitutional issues any day of the week, he knows just a little more then you do)
-I’VE SHOWED YOU WHERE YOU’RE WRONG ON TERRORIST SURVAILENCE
-I’VE SHOWEDYOU YOU’RE WRONG ON GITMO (I tried to tell you who the prisoners in Gitmo really are)
-AND I’VE LISTED ON THIS BLOG SITE THE REASONS THAT THE TERRORIST DON’T FALL UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONSYou’re whole pretence is that everything was fine and dandy ‘til the “Yanks” stuck their faces in (destabilizing the middle east – When was it ever stable) and that’s a lie.
P. S. on a different thread about Iraq/Syria/Israel/Palestine…you said this:
“you didn't care if innocents died.. at least not when they're funny brown people couple thousand miles away.” – in essence calling me a racist, there’s no way you can know this so I’m going to tell you, my wife is from Peru, hence her family is from the same place and that make my kids Americans of Peruvian decent, can you tell me the demographics of Lima?!? Here let me help you “brown people” in plain English: FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!You’re an appeaser people like you allowed: Hitler to power, let Castro get away murder, allowed the ChiComms to kill and imprison people during the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, let the killing fields happen, forced us to leave Viet Nam letting 500,000 people be slaughtered with no one to protect them. People like you hold people like John Kerry as heroes even now after his comments about the military (Dave). I’m not going to allow another Viet Nam to happen-not if I have anything to say about it.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING
Wed Nov 22 2006 4:49 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
“So you complain about the slow progress in Iraq”
--progress implies moving forward. Iraq has been set backward by your intervention.“your desire to cut and run is actually an offensive strategy because it foils terrorists”
--I’m not the only one stating that. But as I see it you have 3 options. Take my advice, or add more troops to the meat grinder, or nuke the country. And since top military brass are saying adding more troops will not change anything, much less coming up with the troops would be next to impossible. So why don’t you tell me what your plan is to ‘foil’ the terrorists instead of just blowing bellicose rhetoric?“why can't you just be honest enough to say you want to surrender? “
--because there’s nothing to surrender to. I know reading is an issue for you, so here it is again.
Cpurick wrote
“you want us to lose it out of spite”
I wrote
”You lost the war long ago due to a myriad of reasons.”Surrender implies capitulating in the face of possible victory. Since you have yet to offer any substantive input into showing what would be needed to achieve a victory condition, ill continue to work on the premise that you are fighting a lost cause.
“to be trying to sell your viewpoint as a bizarre victory instead of admitting that you want to retreat from a battle you just haven't got the testicular fortitude to fight?”
--there is no ‘victory’ in any choice left to us. You will leave Iraq a failed state whether you leave today or 10 years from now. The question is how many dead soldiers and Iraqi civilians will be incurred before you reach that conclusion on your own. And I will firmly admit without reservation, you are absolutely correct, I would not have the ‘testicular fortitude’ to fight this battle. But that is based on my convictions that this war is wrong, unjust and a crime against humanity. For me to ‘fight’ this battle would be like asking me to fight for the ideals of the KKK or neonazis. I would not fight this battle for Haliburton execs fat wallets, permanent American military bases, PNAC, administration lies and Israeli security interests. You have no such reservation, and hence you have no balls to talk of yourself.“Even Dave wasn't stupid enough to make that truly Orwellian argument. It certainly splashes cold water on the original premise that Fox News' position is incorrect or even noteworthy.”
--I admire Dave’s insights whether he would agree with what I say or not. But I’m sure we might both agree that you should re-introduce yourself to 1984 because its pretty apparent that you don’t have a clue about Orwells message since you can’t seem to make the link between the White House, the Pentagon and Fox News.“It's good to see you guys fighting fire with fire in the war on propaganda -- oops, I mean fighting news with propaganda in your war against America. That's more accurate.”
--And you’re still just pissing in the wind with your mouth wide open.Actually this is intolerable. As in the past I always seem to be put on the defensive to back up my arguments with facts and reason. I’m now going to turn this around to the loud, mealy mouthed, non-elitist right wing zombies who parrot the same shit without thinking.
You believe ‘as Moody does’ that insurgents are overjoyed with a Dem congress. Please explain in detail WHY! Be simple, be over analytical, be whatever, but explain it away. I’m really looking forward to this. While you’re at it, explain to me HOW you would achieve VICTORY in Iraq, and what that VICTORY condition is. And don’t just blurt out something stupid like ‘till all the terrorists are dead’. I want details. How? With what? How much application of force? Etc… if you truly believe ‘cut n run’ as you put it, is not the answer, then what is?
I’m waiting with breathless anticipation.
Wed Nov 22 2006 5:00 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
NJ, your revisionist history leaves something to be desired.
All your points are rebutable with one word. Blowback. But ill itemize it for you.
-Iranian hostage crisis was direct blowback from the US overthrowing a democratically elected prez, substituted with the Shah and his wonderful secret police force SAVAK, whose dictatorial power and US subservience directly led to the revolution, but im sure you already knew that.
-Yes NJ, we have a jewish problem. Its called the gov't of Israel. And for every one sadistic act like throwing the man overboard, there are countless horrendous human rights abuses going on in Gaza and the West Bank you never see, hear, or speak of because your obviously have a genuine 'Arab' problem.
-Pan Am 103 has been describes as the direct result of Reagans order to bomb Ghadaffi (Operation El Dorado Canyon)over a water dispute and a suspected bombing in germany. This bombing killed his daughter. Lockerbie was his reprisal.
-India and Pakistan have been at the brink of war over the issue of Kashmir for as long as i care to remember. Tit for tat violence between the two countries/religious idealogies have been just as long.Man, grow the fuck up.
Your "Our govenment is holier than thou" attitude is revolting. You're like that stupid broad who burned herself drinking coffee and successfully sued because she didn't know it was hot. You have no clue whats been done under your name by your government around the world and how perceptions and actions lead over words and rhetoric. But my guess is even if you did, you still would be in denial, clinging to the firm belief that "America always does the right thing". To allow that realisation to sink in would probably destroy your mind and you forever be unable to funtion coherently.(not much of a change from today i digress)
Yes, i want to see the Prez impeached. He has more to answer for the Willy.
You claim you attempted to make nice and be civil. I contend you tried to save face and walk away from responsibility. Consider...
-I’VE SHOWED YOU WHERE YOU WERE WRONG ON THE PRESIDENT’S POWER TO DEFEND THIS CONTRY (Sorry Dave, I’ll take Mark Levin’s word over yours on Constitutional issues any day of the week, he knows just a little more then you do)
---Im pretty sure the Supreme Court knows a little more than Mark Levin, even when its stacked with Repub justices.
-I’VE SHOWED YOU WHERE YOU’RE WRONG ON TERRORIST SURVAILENCE
---Again i believe courts have a better handle on that than you.
-I’VE SHOWEDYOU YOU’RE WRONG ON GITMO (I tried to tell you who the prisoners in Gitmo really are)
---and i've linked you to US Dept. of Def. pages showing 90% of all detainees innocent
-AND I’VE LISTED ON THIS BLOG SITE THE REASONS THAT THE TERRORIST DON’T FALL UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS
---You, and the U.S. of A for that matter, do not decide how to interpret those conventions. Wouldn't Iran or N.K. love to use your rules. Oh wait, they do! But they're the bad guys."everything was fine and dandy ‘til the “Yanks” stuck their faces in (destabilizing the middle east"
-i've pointed out enough instances of US involvement in the region that made the place go apeshit. If you need a list, ill compile one." in essence calling me a racist, "
-no. i was calling you inhuman. calling them brown was just a descriptive to cast them in the vein that you view them as... alien. They are not AMERICAN, they are OTHER. Therefore you couldn't give two shits about 500,000 Iraqi kids dying from sanctions, up to 650,000 as a result of this stupid war, and on and on. How many dead to justify the loss of 3000?"forced us to leave Viet Nam letting 500,000 people be slaughtered with no one to protect them"
-ahh, NJ, a god unto himself. So now this all boils down to defending the planet and its inhabitants. At what cost? Will you wage war against the last bastion of communism China and its little friends like NK, Cuba and so forth? What of Darfur? Would you commit to a ground invasion to save them from the ongoing slaughter? What about most of Africa? People dying and being slaughtered under the warlords rule? To what degree will you go to, to save the world and Amerikanize it with 'your' values. How will you judge who's poor, suffering and repressed are worthy of you great militaries intervention and assualt? By the depth of suffering or the value of the nations resources you can plunder? Please let me know NJ, how much of the US your willing to sacrifice.
Wed Nov 22 2006 7:28 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
You know, its absolutely funny how something’s just happen. 2 hours ago I wrote that diatribe to these wonderful wingers and then I go off to my usual stomping ground AntiWar.com which is populated with everyone, left, right, dem, rep, liberal, conservative and libertarian. And I came across this article
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0611f.aspand thought, "Holy crap, its almost word for word regurgitation of what I just wrote."
Granted because I read all their columnists and from the varying sources, whether left (the Nation, Salon, etc.) or the right (New American, Freedom Foundation, John Birch) that my views would be expressed likeminded. Still the striking of the similarity made me do a double take.
So here I sit, and come to a startling revelation. It’s not the conservatives, it’s not the right', hell, its not even republicans. I firmly believe the left and the right and those in the middle can work together. Only these closet fascists that masquerade as conservatives and republicans are the problem. So for me, it wont ever be an issue between spectrums any more. It'll boil down to whether you’re for the Republic, or the Empire, freedom or police state, peace or perpetual war.
Between living free vs. the world NJ and cpurick want for us all.
Wed Nov 22 2006 10:04 PM
cpurick:
"As in the past I always seem to be put on the defensive to back up my arguments with facts and reason."
Yes, I'm sure you find it quite annoying that people will not accept your arguments without facts and reason. Considering your position, it's no doubt a source of constant frustration for you.
"You believe ‘as Moody does’ that insurgents are overjoyed with a Dem congress. Please explain in detail WHY!"
Because, contrary to the rantings of the left and the popular leftist media, the United States in fact has the ability to hold Iraq almost indefinitely with minimal loss of American life (only 1/20th of the losses we saw in Vietnam, for example) and minimal impact on the US economy (which continues to grow -- complete with rising living standards -- despite the war). As such, there is no technical reason that we cannot stay for a long, long time.
That presence in Iraq thwarts all manner of malfeasance -- take your pick. On the other hand I can think of nothing benevolent, that anyone is trying to achieve in Iraq, which might be twarted by our presence. With respect to those who seek to do bad things in Iraq, then, the outlook is far brighter if we leave, and it appears quite impossible for them to push us out militarily.
Now, Dems ran on a platform that centered on the prospect of leaving Iraq voluntarily. Suddenly, the forces which foil all sorts of evil, and which cannot be defeated militarily, are under the command of people who actually value leaving more than anything we might achieve by staying. Why, then, should those who seek to do that evil not be more optimistic about their chances of doing it? Obviously I cannot "prove a negative" to answer this, so it necessarily falls upon you to show an exception to my thinking. And the best exception you've provided is that our leaving works against the bad guys because then they wouldn't be able to kill us anymore. In other words, total bullshit.
"explain to me HOW you would achieve VICTORY in Iraq, and what that VICTORY condition is."
We went to Iraq to implement a regime change first advanced by Bill Clinton. The regime we displaced was openly hostile, was a proven threat to its neighbors and the global resources on which America and the world depends, and refused to abide by its commitments to document its disarmament.Victory, then, comes when we leave behind a stable Iraq that is no longer a threat its neighbors or to the interests of the United States. I can't say how this is best done; my interest is in the appointment of the politicians who will allow it to happen, and their selection of military leaders who have a vision for doing it.
I can only say that there are plenty of countries in the world -- and in that region -- who do not pose a threat to us, and there is no reason we cannot believe a better Iraq for most Iraqis than the one they had before we got there. The bar is not particularly high.
Unlike you, I don't buy into the futility argument. We haven't even worked up a sweat in Iraq. You've said nothing about the progress we *have* made -- infrastructure, schools, health care. Every negative thing you defeatists say is fully discounted by the truth of what's really happening over there.
The reality is that you guys value life more than the things that make life worth living. And that's pathetic.
Thu Nov 23 2006 2:00 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
No I find it intolerable to have to argue using facts against beliefs and rhetoric.
"the United States in fact has the ability to hold Iraq almost indefinitely"
-I never said you couldn't 'hold' it, I said you couldn’t win, and a stalemate is a loss."minimal loss of American life"
-tell that to the dead soldiers parents who believed you invaded over WMD and the grave and imminent threat. And again its telling that Iraqi civilian life does not register in your equation."presence in Iraq thwarts all manner of malfeasance"
-I’ve already shown countless times that it incites, not thwarts 'malfeasance'. Strike one."Obviously I cannot "prove a negative" to answer this, so it necessarily falls upon you"
-So what you're saying is the you obviously cannot back up your claim that it would be a route for insurgents if US forces left, so it's up to me to point you to documents like this
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=node/2542
which unequivocally state that according to 16... count that again 16 US spy agencies all concurred that the Iraq war, and its continuing occupation is ballooning terrorism, not vise versa. WHY you ask? Well if you bothered to read (a problem I know) any authoritative literature on terrorism, you'll find that occupation of land by a foreign, alien, and culturally/religiously opposed people such as yourselves are the central basis for the rise of the insurgency and the acceptance by the local populace of using foreign jihadists to expel you. I’d suggest Robert Papes book, Dying to Win. Trust me, I won’t be surprised if you fail to grasp the concept and continue to say I spew bullshit. Maybe you'd like to point me to some of the academia you read? William Kristol? David Horowitz? Ann Coulter? Thanks but i'll stick to the likes of Pape, Michael Scheuer and Eric Margolis who research history, not revise it, and stay away from policy wanking keyboard commandos. Strike two.When I asked you to explain the victory condition, I didn't ask you to preface it with bold-faced lies. You say the regime was openly hostile. To Israel yes. The US, no. You say he refused to abide by commitments to disarm? You are joking right? Does the whole 'where are the WMD's' thing ring a bell? When it comes to international commitments, Saddam was well ahead of another country I can think of. Yep you guessed it... Israel. Now onto your Victory condition.
"Iraq that is no longer a threat its neighbors or to the interests of the United States. I can't say how this is best done"
-and therein lies the rub. Of course you can't. Whereas I provide theories backed up by factual assertions, data compiled by experts both military and historical, and lay out each scenario in its appropriate context... you brush it aside because 'your gut' tells you I’m wrong, though you cant prove your own argument, much less disprove mine. But it’s so easy to stick into that mindless stay the course banter. You leave it to 'the politicians' (democrat excluded), the same ones who fucked things up from day one, but yeah you trust them. And no matter how many countless military leaders, war colleges, former generals and the sacking of Rummy go to show there is no military solution, you're still looking for one with 'vision'. Does this vision entail turning all of Iraq into a free fire zone, Fallujahs on a daily basis? What further military action could you do to achieve victory? How many more civilians will die due to your vision? Strike three."You've said nothing about the progress we *have* made -- infrastructure, schools, health care"
-If I had to post links to articles to rebut this, it would run 10 miles long. Infrastructure? Running water there is a luxury. Most roads are still cratered. Electricity runs for about 2-3hrs a day, worse than pre-war levels. Healthcare has collapsed to stone age levels with severe shortages of meds, vaccines, needles, etc. Most of the schools are empty because parents fear sending their kids out with the daily killings. And don’t get me started with all the wonderful work the provisional authority did with all the billions for reconstruction.
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_011006.html
And now that all the money has been used up, to hell with Iraqi infrastructure... any money going to Iraq now is for the embassy, permanent bases and solidifying the green zone. Regular Iraqis lose again."We haven't even worked up a sweat in Iraq"
-Dare I say that sounds a lot like “bring’em on”?"The reality is that you guys value life more than the things that make life worth living. And that's pathetic"
No cpurick, the reality is you avoid reality. Its like the chicken or the egg. Were you always like this and watch Fox to validate you're life, or did watching Fox embed the seeds of complacency and remove the critical thought process?
Fri Nov 24 2006 12:52 AM
Dave E.:
Oh boy. Seriously...there are still people out there who think like this?
"Yes, I'm sure you find it quite annoying that people will not accept your arguments without facts and reason."
Smarmy, baseless backtalk. When you're the one putting Fox News on a pedastal, any reasonably prudent person would find the pro-Iraq status quo side wanting of facts and reason after the daily reminder of Bush's fuck up. 202 people dead, 250 wounded in Iraq on Thursday. This death toll accumulates over a philosophical hunch, remember. More evidence of progress? Schools built so the faculty gets slaughtered in front of the students? Or electricity still not at pre-war levels? More journalists killed than in Viet Nam? Or WWII even? This is progress, just because the dead Americans are acceptable to you?? It's acceptable that this is the standard they're dying for? During all the revisions of rationales for invading? This is cartoonish, and to not acknowledge this failure - something even the most hardcore neocons are doing now - is absolutely discrediting. You simply discredit yourself by shaking your ridiculous pom poms. We, like the rest of the sane world, are laughing at you buddy.
"the United States in fact has the ability to hold Iraq almost indefinitely with minimal loss of American life (only 1/20th of the losses we saw in Vietnam, for example)"
-Sacrifice your kid to "hold Iraq". Bentham would shake his head at any nation burning away lives and money to "hold" a nation predisposed to despise occupiers. I've spent a year of my life in the middle-east. Amazingly, they don't want foreign military roaming their streets."and minimal impact on the US economy (which continues to grow -- complete with rising living standards -- despite the war)."
-real wages drop, people with health care drop, the economy grows because the heights become further concentrated and the middle class continues to evaporate. Jobs created are increasingly service-based and pay nothing. And we continue to not only sink billions on a war of choice, but stand by as billions turn up missing and unaccounted for. More c-prick progress, no doubt."As such, there is no technical reason that we cannot stay for a long, long time."
-So long as you or anyone of consequence is not included in your version of "we", I have no doubt that you're correct. You've said so yourself. To me, this is criminal - the privileged insulating themselves from the costs of war. But you're vested in the romanticized eden of the middle east sold by the neoconservatives. Anything that runs counter to this mirage you'll attack as lacking fact or reason, when you're the bloke hanging on to a crazy hunch by a thread."That presence in Iraq thwarts all manner of malfeasance -- take your pick. On the other hand I can think of nothing benevolent, that anyone is trying to achieve in Iraq, which might be twarted by our presence. With respect to those who seek to do bad things in Iraq, then, the outlook is far brighter if we leave, and it appears quite impossible for them to push us out militarily."
-False.False, false, false, false. You are so mistaken it's painful, and this is the source of your outrage at that whole crazy majority of Americans who've used powers of common sense and reason to understand that we're in the middle of a civil war. Pushing us out militarily is no priority because "they" are Sunni and Shiite militia's that are settling historical conflicts. We are people dying in the crossfire, targets of opportunity. Pollyanna's like you refuse to see what is slapping you in the face daily because it counters your recalcitrant belief that democracy heals all wounds.
"Now, Dems ran on a platform that centered on the prospect of leaving Iraq voluntarily. Suddenly, the forces which foil all sorts of evil, and which cannot be defeated militarily, are under the command of people who actually value leaving more than anything we might achieve by staying. Why, then, should those who seek to do that evil not be more optimistic about their chances of doing it? Obviously I cannot "prove a negative" to answer this, so it necessarily falls upon you to show an exception to my thinking. And the best exception you've provided is that our leaving works against the bad guys because then they wouldn't be able to kill us anymore. In other words, total bullshit."
-What a terrible fucking writer. Really, this is my reaction to this passage. It makes me worried that c-prick's mailing out fake anthrax to people he seethes over. YOU think something necessarily falls on other people to prove you wrong, but, the burden here continues to remain on the people that have fucked this up from the beginning. We don't owe you shit. People like you owe untold thousands of American and Iraqi families explanations you can't give.
"We went to Iraq to implement a regime change first advanced by Bill Clinton. The regime we displaced was openly hostile, was a proven threat to its neighbors and the global resources on which America and the world depends, and refused to abide by its commitments to document its disarmament."
-UN sanctions, however inhumane and ghastly, worked. In case you didn't hear yet...there were no WMD found. Hussein was effectively contained (I helped do it), and while it was a temp fix it was much more workable than this shia crescent, and looming Kurdish state which Turkey will fight a separate war over.
"Victory, then, comes when we leave behind a stable Iraq that is no longer a threat its neighbors or to the interests of the United States."
-Then sending in an American occupying force to impose a new governmental scheme on sects which have slowly bided time to exact revenge on each other was not the way to go about achieving this goal. Duh. Doing so has become the height of absurdity in what is the most negligent foreign policy blunder in American history.
"I can't say how this is best done;"
-So what, exactly, have you been whining about again? Are you that big of a hypocrite?
"my interest is in the appointment of the politicians who will allow it to happen, and their selection of military leaders who have a vision for doing it."
-Right. Not the pragmatists who have all been shit-canned for giving what has turned out to be accurate advice. "Allowing it to happen" now actually stands for: "the most exacerbated and spectacular kind of failure we can possibly achieve...really, we want to redefine the word failure so it makes people cringe to hear it."
"I can only say that there are plenty of countries in the world -- and in that region -- who do not pose a threat to us, and there is no reason we cannot believe a better Iraq for most Iraqis than the one they had before we got there. The bar is not particularly high."
-And we're managing to fail clearing it. I guarantee there is not one American family that would volunteer their kid's life to only make an Iraqi's life a little bit better, if that is how the question was posed to them before going in. We call them "towel heads" when upset at the Iraqi's failure to speedily assimilate to democratic and western values, but then placate ourselves when thinking about our superior civilizing cause and how grand they'll feel once all our American democracy is wrapped up inside their ribs (shout out to NJ...no, he's not racist). Of course our brave American soldiers should gladly die for this.
I disagree. This is difficult to square for a reasonable person.
"Unlike you, I don't buy into the futility argument. We haven't even worked up a sweat in Iraq. You've said nothing about the progress we *have* made -- infrastructure, schools, health care. Every negative thing you defeatists say is fully discounted by the truth of what's really happening over there."
-Check your sources.
"The reality is that you guys value life more than the things that make life worth living. And that's pathetic."
-This is your reality, and it continues to get people killed for no good reason. Gutless and cowardly are the objective measurement of your words. Period.
Most of the rest of us (a majority remember) value living on our feet with integrity, abiding by the rule of law under our Constitution, and embracing honesty by owning up to what we do both wrong and right as generally the most realistic way to lead the free world in combating terrorism smartly and responsibly.
Fri Nov 24 2006 7:01 AM
cpurick:
Oh, Dave's back. Hi Dave!
Dave, did you happen to come up with anything a Dem congress might do differently that any insurgents would *not* like? Remember, that's kind of critical to your theory that Fox's position is propagandist.
As I recall, that's where we left off, and I don't think you've ever answered it. Were you planning to build further on a foundation with a big logic hole in it?
You know, I find it funny that your negative view of Iraq does not match the picture we get from the soldiers who've been there.
Try not to forget that we're dealing with a very small minority of really bad guys, and that we have something of a responsibility to the majority of innocents who are caught up in it.
It doesn't really matter whether you think those people's lives are worth protecting. After all, you're just another brainwashed liberal.
Fri Nov 24 2006 8:33 AM
Dave E.:
Hi ricky! How's life shrouded in willful ignorance been treating you? Still see you're enjoying being a troll on a liberal blog...it's just amazing you've managed to make this big of an ass of yourself! I mean, wow...you're still posting! This is really quite impressive. We're all flaming liberals whose lives are worthless? A totally reasonable statement. Happy holidays to you too...I'm sure your rage is keeping you nice and warm, whereever you stew over your marginalization through irrefutable electoral destruction.
Now, about this faulty question you've constructed and obsess over: as you yourself stated, you don't even concern yourself with nuts and bolts of policy. You just get manipulated into voting for politicians who focus group the hell out of phraseology that appeals to your lizard brain. Why then, honestly, should I indulge you when you've already stated you refuse to even walk your own talk? Seems a bit hypocritical. I'm spotting a trend there...
But I'll put forth a quasi-answer anyway, since you've obviously maintained such a cordial demeanor in this thread, what with all the friendly "your lives are worthless" banter: the benefit of a Dem Congress should be self-evident to any reasonable person. This is why you don't understand why it's beneficial and you never will. This is why you troll on liberal blogs. This is why no logical or reasonable answer will ever change your mind.
This is why your false question won't be provided here with any myriad of obvious answers out there to any literate person with a clicker, an internet connection, and an open mind.
Finally, I suggest you actually read the entire memo and the other memos flagged in the links Jim provided before making yourself look like an even bigger nincompoop for championing Fox New's non-existent integrity on a liberal blog. The quoted language excerpted doesn't tell the whole story. Terms used make it quite express and easy to interpret that the writer's intent is to be a conservative mouthpiece. Again, speaking honestly, Fox News infractions are well-documented and exhaustively supported. But once again, these reasonable and logical assertions cannot penetrate the skull of a wingnut.
Honestly? Your posts speak for themselves. Any reasonable person reading this thread knows the lunatic is you. Just another troll, trolling for reactions.
I for one, am done with this thread. It speaks for itself.
Oh. And Sorry about that OJ interview. I'm sure you're devastated that piece of journalistic integrity won't air. Those danged liberals!
Fri Nov 24 2006 6:43 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
This is cpricks progress as told by actual Iraqi's in Iraq.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-2470188,00.html
Sat Nov 25 2006 6:30 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
A question to the freedom loving warhawks out here.
Click my name and answer the question.
And then tell me if Moody has released a memo asking to see if people like Castro, Hu Jintao, Choummaly Sayasone and Kim Jong Il are showing jubilation and feeling emboldened when Prez Bush is shaking hands and being chummy chummy with Nguyen Minh Triet?
Comon blowhards, wheres the bravado now?
Tue Dec 5 2006 1:09 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
Welcome to 2007. Happy New Year.
Click on my name. Maybe they'll install a gallows at the Hague in a few years?
Tue Jan 2 2007 6:41 PM
Lieutenant Locke:
Heh, wow! What a load of BULLSHIT! Holly crap! I can't believe I just read all of that!
Ok. Two words...and a symbol
YUGOSLAVIA = IRAQ
Same shit different country. Not gonna be amazed if Iraq falls apart just like that. What was that saying? To learn from the past so that we do not repeat it?
I am joining the U.S. Army. I do not agree with Iraq. I will most likely be sent to Iraq. Why? Because after I've done my time in Hell, I will come back, be able to speak my mind about it, and no one will tell me what I can and can't think about it.Then I'll be sent somewhere elsewhere, and see how it all works out.
My point is that, no matter how fucked up politics are, it is not the soldiers fault. And just because I am enlisting at a time when there is an 'unjust' war, doesn't make me wrong either. (and anyone who will try to tell me that will crawl away with a broken nose) I am joining the Army, not the Iraqi War. If I get sent there, fine. It is the same as being stationed in Korea or Kosovo.
Also, remember, we did not loose 58,195 troops in one night! Vietnam also had a 3,000 mark, although that one took about 5-6 years to happen from the official date of the war's start (11 DEC 61, according to the Pentagon).
Read this: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526309
This made the point all too clear: "In the weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, public backing was powerful. But opinion began to shift quickly once the Iraqi army was beaten, its leader was forced into hiding, and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were not found."
So lets see:
BUSH SAYS...
Saddam is a threat
Saddam is bad
Saddam has WMDsGround Offensive Responds...
Saddam's Army is no more
Saddam is hidding in a rat hole
Saddam had none! Falcified intel![/Rant]
If you are a Republican, fine! Go have fun. If you are a Democrat, fine! Same to ya! I could care less. I care about thigs that affect me, my fellow Americans, and my country.
Sun Jan 7 2007 11:26 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
Paul Roberts hits every nail on the head in this peice.
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10284Heres a snipit of how it begins
"The new year began on the hopeful note that Bush’s illegal war in Iraq would soon be ended. The repudiation of Bush and the Republicans in the November congressional election, the Iraq Study Group’s unanimous conclusion that the US needs to remove its troops from the sectarian strife Bush set in motion by invading Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld’s removal as defense secretary and his replacement by Iraqi Study Group member Robert Gates, the thumbs down given by America’s top military commanders to the neoconservatives’ plan to send more US troops to Iraq, and new polls of the US military that reveal that only a minority supports Bush’s Iraq policy, thus giving new meaning to "support the troops," are all indications that Americans have shed the stupor that has given carte blanche to George W. Bush.
When word leaked that Bush was inclined toward the "surge option" of committing more troops by keeping existing troops deployed in Iraq after their replacements had arrived, NBC News reported that an administration official "admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one." It is a clear sign of exasperation with Bush when an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions."
Tue Jan 9 2007 12:42 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
I don't know if anyone even reads these anymore, but im going to put this up in full for all of those who can actually read, because i dont believe there are and neocons who would bother going to the link. This is from the #1 place for facts regarding the Iraq war.
April 27, 2007
Our Captive Media
Bill Moyers indicts media reporting in the run-up to war
by Justin RaimondoI have to say that watching Bill Moyers’ "Buying the War" was quite an experience for me: a kind of vindication, yes, but also, ultimately, quite a depressing experience.
As the editorial director of Antiwar.com, my job is to make sure that we cut through the government propaganda and get at the truth about what is really going on in the world, and during the run-up to the Iraq war we had quite a time of it. The lies were coming so thick, and so fast, that it was all we at Antiwar.com could do to continually refute them, and yet that is precisely what we did. Moyers takes us through the lies, and shows how the "mainstream" media failed to make any critical analysis of the administration’s allegations. That job, sadly, was left to us.
Saddam’s mythical nuclear program was really the linchpin of the case for war, and we debunked it as early as February, 2001 (also here), and kept doing so throughout the years. The fake "centrifuges," the tall tales of Iraqi "defectors" (in reality, phonies primed by the Iraqi National Congress), and the really quite comical claim by the President that Iraq was going to bomb the U.S. using unmanned aerial vehicles – all of this was derided in this space, and in the editorial columns of Antiwar.com, years before the rest of the media woke up to the fact that they’d been fooled.
Iraq’s alleged "links" to al Qaeda – the "cakewalk" fantasy – the Niger uranium mythos – the lies of Ahmed Chalabi – the announced goal of building "democracy" in Iraq: we debunked all this, and more, every day before war finally broke out (having predicted its outbreak as early as 1999).
So, if we – at the time, practically a singlejack operation with even less funding than we have now – could get this right, how come the major media organizations, with all kinds of bureaus, analysts, and whatnot, got the story so wrong? The answer doesn’t really come through in the Moyers documentary. Here’s Walter Isaacson, formerly chairman and CEO of CNN:
"There was even almost a patriotism police which, you know, they'd be up there on the internet sort of picking anything a Christiane Amanpour, or somebody else would say as if it were disloyal."
Yet this "patriotism police" didn’t have police powers: journalists were free to broadcast and write what they pleased, and media outlets were free to carry it: so what was the problem? Was the head of one of the biggest cable television outfits in the world really afraid of what a few fiercely partisan bloggers were going to say about him and his network? That’s hard to believe. As for poor little Ms. Amanpour – surely she had plenty of experience as a human megaphone for U.S. government pronouncements in wartime, having acted in that capacity during Bill Clinton’s war to "liberate" Kosovo. So it wasn’t too surprising when she played the same role during the run-up to war with Iraq. Moyers isn’t satisfied with Isaacson’s answer, either, and goes on to press him:
"’When American forces went after the terrorist bases in Afghanistan, network and cable news reported the civilian casualties …the patriot police came knocking.’
"ISAACSON: – We'd put it on the air and by nature of a 24 hour TV network, it was replaying over and over again. So, you would get phone calls. You would get advertisers. You would get the Administration.’
"MOYERS: – You said pressure from advertisers?’
"ISAACSON: – Not direct pressure from advertisers, but big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'"
Oh please – "big people in corporations"!? Spare us the excuses. Isaacson says there was no "direct pressure" from these people, and I believe him. That leaves all those terribly hurtful phone calls, fer chrissake, which somehow forced CNN to capitulate to the War Party. One has to wonder: if phone calls are enough to scare the American media into a complicit silence, then how much of a backbone did they have to begin with?
This had nothing to do with bowing to market forces, or suffering real economic consequences from telling the truth – and everything to do with sheer cowardice. Journalists are human beings, like the rest of us, and they want to be liked: this is only natural. However, when the desire for approval dominates everything else, and prevents you from doing your job, it becomes a problem. An irate phone call never hurt anyone – but to hear Isaacson tell it, these calls were the equivalent of IEDs that had the media under fire and were enough to put a major network out of commission when it came to doing real journalism. This is, frankly, a ridiculous assertion, and I – for one – don’t believe it for a moment.
Isaacson tried to pin the blame on Fox News, whining that
"We were caught between this patriotic fervor and a competitor who was using that to their advantage; they were pushing the fact that CNN was too liberal that we were sort of vaguely anti-American."
Oh, poor baby! Come to Mama! The fact is that there was nothing to stop CNN from attacking Fox as a shill for the administration: indeed, it would have made for some good television, and helped their ratings. Nothing is better than a good old feud, as MSNBC has recently learned (there’s a reason why Keith Olbermann keeps twisting the knife in Bill O’Reilly’s ribs, aside from the sheer joy of doing it). But that apparently never occurred to Senor Isaacson: instead, he and his ilk chose to cut and run – and lose whatever journalistic integrity they could previously lay claim to.
Moyers makes a number of points that hit the War Party straight in the kisser: the centrality of the neoconservatives as the vanguard of the War Party, and their ubiquitous dominance of the "debate" in the media, is a point we at Antiwar.com kept making over and over. The story of the spiking of Phil Donahue’s show, which Moyers delves into, is particularly instructive in detailing how and why any and all alternative voices were eliminated by media bigwigs. I am glad to see Knight-Ridder News Service, now McClatchy News Service, getting a lot of credit as a swimmer-against-the-tide of public -and elite opinion. The duo of Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay are particularly incisive when it comes to analyzing the failure of their colleagues in more influential venues to get the real story about how the administration was essentially fabricating "evidence" of Iraqi WMD and links to al Qaeda.
The New York Times is taken to task for its monumental contribution to the Grand Deception: it’s well-known by now how Judith Miller single-handedly pulled off one of the biggest cons in the history of journalism, second only to the fraud perpetrated by the Hearst papers in the prelude to the Spanish-American War. Less appreciated is the treacherous role played by Vanity Fair magazine as one of the biggest purveyors of lies, second only to the Times – their series of defector stories, all of which turned out to be completely and utterly fictitious, did a lot to convince the elites that war was necessary because Saddam represented a real threat.
One by one, the shills for war are brought before the cameras and questioned: Peter Beinart, editor (at the time) of The New Republic, looks like a deer in the headlights as he comes under Moyers’ relentless assault. Here is a guy who wrote an entire book about how the battle is now between "pro-American" Trumanites in the Democratic party, and "appeasers" vaguely analogous to the followers of Henry Wallace during the 1950s – that, apparently, was his big qualification as a "Middle East expert." Beinart smeared the antiwar movement as "anti-American," and rallied the "Truman Democrats" around the War Party’s banner: now he says the whole thing was a "tragic" mistake – and is being rewarded with a column in Time magazine, alongside his fellow neocon Bill Kristol.
When Moyers points out that "Far more people saw you, see Bill Kristol on television, than will ever read the Associated Press reports or the Knight Ridder reporters," Beinart bemoans the effect of television on the American consciousness but understandably balks at reaching the obvious conclusion: not that, as Beinart puts it, we’d "be a better society if people got most of their news from print rather than television," but that we’d be a lot better off if we saw less of him and his fellow neocons on television. The problem is the message, not the medium.
In the meantime, those of us who were right – not just in our general opposition to the interventionist policies that brought us to a disastrous war, but in the details of the administration’s case for invading Iraq – are still laboring in the vineyards of relative obscurity, unsung and surely unrewarded. I can live without a column in Time magazine – although I have to admit it would be nice – but at least I ought to be spared the obscenity of watching as these hapless twits are lionized for getting it wrong.
Tim Russert gets his just deserts, finally, when Moyers points out to him how the administration would leak phony "evidence" of Iraqi WMD on Friday, and then Cheney or someone else would come on his Sunday show and cite it as "proof" of their case for war. "What my concern was," avers Russert, "is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them."
Cutting away from Russert, Moyers trenchantly observes: "Bob Simon didn’t wait for the phone to ring," and then goes on to describe how Simon, of CBS News, did interview experts who cast doubt on the administration’s "evidence."
Moyers gets very close to the real essence of the issue when he asks Isaacson: "How do you explain that the further you get away from official Washington, the closer you get to reality?"
Isaacson mumbles something about too much reliance on "top level sources," but really this doesn’t cover it. The problem clearly goes much deeper than that: after all, why should one believe those "top level sources"? These are high government officials who are hardly unbiased, and, in this case, were actively trying everything they could to sell a war. Whatever happened to caveat emptor?
No, the problem is not in the sources themselves, but in the mindset that analyzes and evaluates the information given out. The Washington press corps is as much a part of the courtier system as the government itself: indeed, it has been subsumed into the government in all but name. These people work together, live together, and often marry each other (no one objected, for example, when Christiane Amanpour was given a leading role in reporting on the Kosovo war when her husband, James Rubin, was a spokesman for Madeleine Albright’s State Department). More importantly, their politics are all centered around the importance and even the majesty of government: most of them are liberals, albeit of the modern sort, who believe that government is the end-all and be-all of human existence: that there is no problem, large or small, which cannot be solved by state action. This panacea applies abroad as well as at home: is Saddam Hussein a "problem"? Well, then, by all means, let Uncle Sam solve it!
That the media is the handmaiden of power in 21st America comes as no surprise: after all, this is what decadence is all about – a quest for comfort above any principle, and safety (especially career safety) above all. In any age or era, cowardice is the rule rather than the exception: in a truly decadent society, however, bravery is almost unknown – and, in any case, atavistic individuals likely to exhibit it are almost entirely excluded the higher up one travels in the social hierarchy. The worst rise to the top, while the best achieve only obscurity – until the society is so top-heavy with venality that the whole structure is in danger of collapsing.
No, we at Antiwar.com didn’t buy the war: but, then again, we were just doing our job – subjecting the "evidence" dished out by the War Party to the strictest scrutiny. Too bad the "mainstream" media didn’t do their job. What scares me is that all the excuses they give for their failure – "reporting is hard," whines Dan Rather – are good for another round of being manipulated by the Powers-That-Be. After all, reporting is still hard: it’s still difficult to stand up against war hysteria, and next time – and there will be a next time, trust me – one fully expects them to revert to their role as government stenographers.
Yes, I suppose I should take the opportunity to point out that this underscores the vital importance of Antiwar.com as an alternative source of news and opinion, and yet – well, yes, it’s true enough. But it’s depressing to realize that integrity is so rare, and that so much of the burden is falling on us. Sad, and a bit scary, too.
Fri Apr 27 2007 4:02 PM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
