Bush, in describing Cindy Sheehan, stated, “She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it.”
This puts Cindy Sheehan in the company of military experts who told Bush things he didn’t want to hear prior to the attack on Iraq. Experts who turned out to be correct.
PAD
• 
“But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.”
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
Ðìçk Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
Craig J.-
Why is it when we accidentally kill a few thousand civilians during a protracted war, it’s murder and the hundreds of thousnads killed by Saddam, deliberately, don’t register.
Civilians always get hurt during wars. Revolutionary War, Civil War, you name it. That is the nature of war. Period.
If a few thousand die in order to improve a situation that was killing hundreds of thousands, then it is worth it. Once again, referance to the Civil War.
Brakyeller-
First off, the point I was trying to make is that the common guy on the street chooses to support or condemn a war because of morality. You said that I was simplifying things.
Well, to the layman, it usually boils down to “Good Guys Vs. Bad Guys”.
The Treaty of Versailles was enormously unfair to Germany. So, from a socio-political standpoint, Hitler had some justification for his initial invasions, particularily the Sudetenland.
But, that wasn’t important that the average joe. He saw what Hitler was doing to other people, concluded that he was a “Bad Guy” and enlisted.
And, I’ve already pointed out that WMD’s were not the sole justification for the war. Was Bush wrong about the no-fly zone violations? Was Bush wrong about Saddam re-arming his military? Was Bush wrong about Saddam misusing Humanitarian aid?
Finally, show me where the lying occurred? Bush acted on the best intelligence that he was presented. It later turned out to be wrong.
One of the reasons we went after Germany in World War Two was that we were worried that they were getting close to completing the atomic bomb. So, despite the fact that Japan was the greater threat and that a two-front war is insanely risky, we went after Germany.
Later, we found out that the Germans weren’t even close to making an atomic weapon. Does that nullify everything we did in Europe?
Remo,
From your posts.
“Second, when I ask for proof, don’t tell me to read the fûçkìņg news. Give me proof.”
Then….
“Brutal as it may sound, but civilians get hurt during wars. Especially during the bombing.
This is not unique to the Iraqi War. Check out the London Blitz, the Firebombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Talk about civilian casualties.”
I mention collateral damage as civilian casualties (while pointing out that we, unlike Saddam, don’t go out and try to kill civilians just for the hëll of it) and you demand proof. Yet, you make posts responding to Craig showing that, even without my giving you such proof, you’ve known about both the concept of collateral damage in war (including this one) and that we’ve done quite a bit of it ourselves in Iraq.
I’m confused. You need me to show you proof of something that you show knowledge of already knowing existed? Oh, wait… I get it. You’re the perfect Bush backer. Different arguments for different people on different days on the same subject even if your arguments can’t exist side by side without looking stupid. Go Bush!
“As noted earlier, when some scumbag beheads a woman or detonates a carbomb near a bunch of kids, I don’t blame the U.S.”
Fine. Neither do I.
“Your argument seems to boil down to “The place is snakepit. The people hate us. The place will always be a snakepit and they will always hate us. It isn’t worth it.”
Not quite. My argument is the “It’s going to be a glorious land full of American style freedoms and they’ll love us forever” argument for going in and how that makes U.S. deaths worth it is a load of crap.
Will a new Iraq grow into being somethig as bad as Saddam’s Iraq? I doubt it. I also doubt it will grow into anything great either. At worst we get the new Iran. At best we have a new country that we treat like the Saudi government. Yeah, they’re a theocracy that treat a number of the people with minority beliefs like crap, they have a long list of human rights violations against them (per Amnesty Int. and others) that share a few common grounds with Saddam’s crimes and, yeah, they do have ties to terrorists groups but, dámņ it, we like them anyhow so stop asking questions about it.
That, and lots of other things about the history of the area and its people from waaaaay before the maps were redrawn to create the mess it became to a week ago last Thursday that support that idea, tend to make me think that the cost in American soldier’s lives are not worth the lie of bush’s Iraq paradise.
And, sorry guys, the WW II stuff just doesn’t fly. I would have had no problem with taking down Hitler when he was invading other free countries, some of whom were are friends and allies, and talking about his master race plans. Would I fight to free a friend or sorta almost friend who was a free country and would return to that state of affairs when it was all said and done? Yeah. But Iraq, unlike Germany, was a country invading nobody. It was contained And what state of affairs will it return to now? Anybody… Anybody… Anybody? At best it will become a theocracy (just look at what thy’re doing with the new government and constitution right now) that will be 100% free only for those with the right beliefs and faith (and the minority belief tribes still get screwed, get angry and maybe spill some blood) and may not be as hostile to us as other countries in that area. Yeah, can’t wait to send G.I.’s over to die for that.
How about Hitler before he started stomping other countries and was just gassing his own people? Again, I would not have a problem with going in. Why? Because you could look at the culture, beliefs and history of the people and see more then a wee bit of proof of backing the idea of an outcome like the one Bush is talking about there then in Iraq. I don’t see that proof in the Middle East. From evrything I’ve read, seen and learned to a number of friends with friends and family still back in the Middle East (one a girl who no longer has a family who will talk to her because she A) became a cop and B) became a Catholic) who tell them about views and ideas expressed there; I only see proof of a minority that may back something kind of like but not really quite the type of “free government” system and free country that the Bushies claim that we’ll put in place in Iraq. I don’t see the return for the investment of lives lost. Sorry.
There were missionaries who (even up to this last decade) walked into the jungle to convert the natives, got told that the last dozen or so guys who did that ended up as lunch, went anyhow because God was with the and they were protected as they were spreading His word and got eaten for lunch anyhow. Some went down the darker path of (to riff on a line from Teehouse of the August Moon) “We’ll convert them, by God, if we have to kill every last one of them to do it!” Right now, the majority of the Bush backers are reminding me of them.
I can see where it makes you feel good to say that you are going to do great things and all that fun stuff. But you can only really do great things if you know what you’re getting into, know what you’re doing and have a pretty good plan with a few good backup plans and have a good head to adjust to new problems. Bush has shown that he and his admin know jack all, can lie pretty good, can spin and can screw up pretty bad every time something new comes up. Not really a winning combo there. It’s also not, adding to the above stuff, a combo I would want to stake lives or futures on.
“Hundreds of thousands of people written off like a footnote in history can’t really be argued with. All I can say is that I hope you don’t believe in karma.”
If there is karma then there are a whole lot of Bushies in bigger trouble then me right now.
I find it funny that you accuse me of writing off deaths when you start off an argument with, “Brutal as it may sound,” and then do the same.
“Brutal as it may sound,” I stick to my view that Bush’s Iraq fantasy will fall apart in the end and all the lives lost will have been for nothing. Does that make me happy? No. It makes me even less so knowing that we didn’t even have to go there to begin with.
Please keep Israel out of the war in Iraq.
Saddam’s help to the famililes of suicide bombers was not a significant thing in the grand scheme of the war on terrorism. It would have been good if after 9/11 the world would have presented a clearer opposition to terrorism as a tactic, including in Israel/Palestine. But Saddam’s involvement in local Palestinian terrorism cannot justify the Iraqi war. I also don’t think that the invasion of Iraq was a major factor in the reduction of suicide bombings. It may have helped a little, but other factors had much greater influence.
I’m certain the Israeli army was happy to erase the threat of missiles from Iraq from its threat list, especially when people still believed that there were WMD. But, the only time that Iraq used missiles against Israel was when it wanted to drag us into the American Gulf War. The fact that Iraq has become a center for terrorists has not affected Israel yet, but it is a threat, probably worse than Saddam. The Arab countries surrounding us are not, at the moment, a threat. The last thing they want is a war with Israel. The biggest threats are (1) terrorism that has no clear addresses, works behind governments and civilians, and cannot be reasoned with; (2) the delegitimization of Israel as a Jewish state, either because of the occupation of the West Bank or for other reasons.
The attitudes for the war in Israel, like in America, were that the more liberal were against it, the more conservative for it, and the middle was uncertain. The general public was mostly indifferent. Most didn’t even bother to open to boxes of the gas masks. Israelis sympathise more with the Americans, because of its support for Israel, and because many Israelis tend to mistrust diplomacy, the UN and Europe, and prefer military action.
Micha
“One might also wonder about the fact that those in the active military voted overwhelmingly for Bush.”
i haven’t been able to find stats on this. what’s your source?
The problem with pointing out Bush’s lies (besides the fact the Bush backers just won’t acknowledge them and pretend they don’t exist) is that the Bushies were very smart in one way. They went out and said everything to everyone. They had different arguments, reasons and beliefs to rattle of for each different group that the were speaking to.
You can go and pull quotes from say, Rumsfeld, to back up how the were telling the truth about how long we will have to struggle in the war and how the war may last years.
But then you have this.
Feb. 7, of 03 at Aviano Air Base, Ialy: Rumsfeld, in response to the growing questions of Iraq’s strength and how long a war would take, stated that the Iraq war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
You can go out and find members of Bush’s admin talking about how they knew it would be a long, hard fight but worth it in the end if we just don’t loose faith.
But then you can find….
Feb. 13, 2002: In a Washington Post op-ed , Ken Adelman, a member of Bush’s admin at that time and speaking on behalf of their case for war and its ease, said, “I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps.”
I’ve yet to find any sourced news story where Bush came out and told those guys and others saying dumb crap like that, as it must not have been what he believed (wink, wink) and to stop telling lies. And they must have been lies since all the Bush backers swear that they were told how hard this would be and how long we would be there before the first shot was even fired. And that is true. You can find quotes from the same people saying just that (and even more POV’s) while talking to a different portion of the American people or to a different group and out of the other side of their mouths.
And some of you bought it. And then you went even farther and bought it when these guys, after a year of saying black is white, white is black and the colors will change in the next speach for the next voter group for over a year, went and claimed that they knew what they were doing in war. Well, claimed that they knew what they were doing that speach. There could be other speaches where they said that they were idiots who didn’t know what the hëll they were doing or saying. Why not? They didn’t seem to mind taking all sides on every other topic.
From the few months before and then just after we went in….
Just before the war:
March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: “What you’d like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the ’90s,” when its forces were routed from Kuwait.
We go in:
March 30, Myers, on Meet the Press: “Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started.”
Pre war:
March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.” He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not “put up such a struggle” and that even “significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside.”
And the war starts:
March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: “A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict.”
“Some”!?! What, like you and your people?
“i haven’t been able to find stats on this. what’s your source?”
Mostly the polling data and election day records.
i haven’t seen polling data showing a breakdown of the military vote. and it’s something i looked for (when i was looking was immediately after the election, possibly before all overseas ballots were in).
Nope. I work in fundraising, remember?
Why would I remember that, or even know it to begin with?
Quite a few figures in this country give to people they could care less about or even despise, because a) it’s politically expedient or b) they want to buy goodwill. And that’s in a country where it’s NOT a life or death matter to get support from certain quarters.
You’re making far too much of this
No, I’m not. Saddam wasn’t in a country where it was a life or death matter to get support from certain quarters. He was in a country that he ruled absolutely. He thought it was in his best interest to identify himself with the Palestinians, Iraq being a founding member of the Arab League. But again, he didn’t identify himself with them by sponsoring charities. He didn’t pay for hospitals in the West Bank, orphanages in Gaza, or free medicine in the Golan Heights. His choice of tactics was to sponsor Hamas and other terrorists. You’re talking as though that were the only way he could have bought sympathy. It wasn’t. He chose that particular tactic for a reason, and given that choice I don’t care if anyone thinks that he inwardly, secretly despised terrorists, if indeed there’s anyone on this blog who can read his mind to know that– he liked them well enough to make use of them.
Bear in mind that the original posting was, “Publicly, Hussein abhored terrorists. What source can you point to that links Iraq with supporting or harboring terrorists?” I refuted that point. I now take issue with your claim that financially supporting individual terrorists– ones known to have carried out suicide bombings– is somehow unimportant. That confuses me. How is it even possible to make “far too much of” that?
i haven’t been able to find stats on this. what’s your source?
honestly? Nothing too good. The only poll I could find was a nonscientific one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry’s anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.
It’s amazing to me that none of the big pollsters took a crack at this, given the fact that Bush and Kerry’s military records were such big issues in the campaign.
It may be because of articles like this one. Maybe they thought it wasn’t worth the time to even ask.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/08/support_for_bush_overwhelming_at_marine_corps_base/
Support for Bush overwhelming at Marine Corps base
It is a measure of President Bush’s unassailable popularity among the US Marines on this base that the only one who admitted that he supported John F. Kerry would say so only on condition of anonymity.
According to a 1999 study by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, a consortium sponsored by three North Carolina research universities, Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the officer corps by a ratio of 8 to 1. By comparison, the general civilian population has a roughly equal proportion of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, according to the group.
So it just may be that the pollsters assume everyone knows that it will be a blowout and don’t bother doing the poll. Yeah, but they have no problem asking how many Black folks are gonna vote for Bush, knowing that it will be in the high single digits. Unless there’s some law that prohibits military folks from being polled I smell a rat.
I seem to remember that recently an extensive breakdown of voters was released. Can’t find it though. I assume it would have military people as one of the categories but who knows?
That said, if Bush didn’t beat kerry by about 10-15% or more among military voters I’d be very surprised.
Oh, good… I’m not the only one who can’t find squat.
After I posted the answer about election data I started an on and off look whenever I got by a computer and found what you found; some speeches about what a blow out for Bush it was and lots of op-eds about Bush winning the military vote. But not a single one actually gives the number of votes the military cast for Bush Vs those for Kerry. I’m sure I saw an actual report on that once but I’ll be dámņëd if I can find it now.
I’ll go along with your call of about 10-15% but not much more then that. I gotta believe that all the pro bush people would be printing the numbers if it were really a blow out rather then a small lead.
Well, I’d call 10-15% a blow out, actually…anytime you win in double digits it’s usually a good sign.
But again, why DON’T we have this information?
Why is it when we accidentally kill a few thousand civilians during a protracted war, it’s murder and the hundreds of thousnads killed by Saddam, deliberately, don’t register.
See, and here’s another mistake on your part: since when does it matter how many Saddam killed in the grand scheme of things, since we’re not all over Africa preventing dictators who are just as bad or worse than Saddam?
The old “It’s good enough with Saddam, but not anybody else” argument.
But we’re not in Africa, and likely never will be.
And you obviously didn’t read that second link I posted, because it talked about how the military could AVOID civilian deaths, but didn’t.
Jerry C.,
You’re just ignoring my points and re-hashing old arguments.
I’ve already pointed out the logical problems with Craig J’s source. If you can refute my analysis, please do so.
Also, I’ve pointed out the difference between hundreds of thousands of people killed in the context of peace and a few thousand killed in the context of war. If you can refute that, please do so.
Finally, I honestly believe that Iraq is worth the effort. That Human nature is worthy of cultivation, regardless of the culture. I’m probably biased because I’ve got a few friends who are from the middle east and there the salt of the Earth.
Also, If you don’t believe me, then you might believe Michael Yon.
He’s a Unaffiliated Journalist who reports and blogs from Iraq. Close enough to get shot at and smell the wounded.
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/
Craig J.-
First off, intervention in Africa against other dictators is a classic straw man argument. Whether Bush wants to intervene or not is a moot point, since, the very moment he would suggest such a thing, his opposition would scream at the top of thier lungs.
With Iraq, we had treaties that had been violated in several places, and Bush still gets a shower of verbal abuse. Imagine the shitstorm that he’d get if he proposed armed intervention in Africa.
Second, I did click the link. The Human Rights Watch does note that many of the civilian casulties could have been prevented. But, again, the point is somewhat moot, because they don’t say HOW the deaths could have been prevented.
Furthermore, they admit that opposition fighters used citizens as human shields and set bases inside mosques and hospitals.
Remo: “Whether Bush wants to intervene or not is a moot point, since, the very moment he would suggest such a thing, his opposition would scream at the top of thier lungs.
With Iraq, we had treaties that had been violated in several places, and Bush still gets a shower of verbal abuse. Imagine the shitstorm that he’d get if he proposed armed intervention in Africa.”
Wait a minute… I thought you said that “the common guy on the street chooses to support or condemn a war because of morality”? You did say that, didn’t you? By that rationale, every ‘morally just’ invasion America wants to launch should be overwhelmingly supported by the man on the street, opposition be dámņëd. If such a war can be morally supported by the man on the street, then why aren’t we going to war with every petty dictator and genocidal šhìŧhëád on the planet? Which of the two versions of reality you’ve presented are you going to side with this time?
Bill Mulligan: “So why are those fighting in Iraq re-enlisting at a higher rate than usual? The army is having trouble getting new enlistees but actually made its target for the last few months–thanks mostly to excellent re-enlistment rates, especially from those in the field of battle.”
Here’s why: recruiters have lowered both their minimal standards and their recruiting goals, making it much easier to clear that lowered bar.
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/001850.php
More from Remo-
“…the point I was trying to make is that the common guy on the street chooses to support or condemn a war because of morality. You said that I was simplifying things.” No, I said that you were oversimplfying your case for the American Civil War being a war fought exclusively over morality, followed by the blanket statement that “…war is, regrettably, never simple.” The implication being that the reasons ‘the common guy on the street’ choose to support or condemn a war are equally not-so-simple.
I also asked you to justify your commitment to the Iraq war (which you view as a morally just war) with regard to the Vietnam war (which you imply was immoral)… a challenge you did not answer. Given the similarities between the two conflicts, how can you support one but not the other?
“The Treaty of Versailles was enormously unfair to Germany [offers justification for initial German invasions]… but that wasn’t important that the average joe. He saw what Hitler was doing to other people, concluded that he was a “Bad Guy” and enlisted.” Yeah, but you’re forgetting one big difference between Hitler and Saddam: Hitler openly aired his plans for world domination, and he represented a clear and direct threat to America, it’s European allies, and everyone in between by succeeding in enacting those plans. On the other hand, Saddam was a petty dictator with an increasingly shrinking military who couldn’t mount a campaign to take over one neighboring country, let alone the entire region. BIG difference; big enough for me to invalidate any reasonable comparison of the two situations, at least insofar as the question of the strategic necessity to depose either dictator is concerned.
“I’ve already pointed out that WMD’s were not the sole justification for the war.” And I’ve already pointed out that the case for invading Iraq centered around the existence and neutralization of non-existant Iraqi WMDs, which were by far the most frequently cited case for war. I’ve even cited (as have others) what the administration said verbatim. Here’s one, just for fun, that’s already been posted, but I’ll post again so that maybe it sticks this time: “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on ONE ISSUE, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003. [EMPHASIS MINE]
That ONE ISSUE was the one presented to the American public, and that was the one issue that galvanized the American public to support a war with Iraq. Not the “he’s a bad man and needs to be deposed” argument. Not the “he’s ignored UN restrictions” argument. Not the “he tried to assassinate Bush Sr. and needs to be punished” argument. Not the “we need to promote security in the Middle East by establishing a beachhead for democracy” argument. What sold the American public on Iraq was the fear of Iraqi WMDs being deployed here at home, a la 9/11, and now that we’ve been there for two years and still haven’t found the source of that fear, an overwhelming majority of the American public want their money back. Consequently, arguing that the main reason for going to war isn’t that important because it wasn’t the SOLE reason for going to war is both obtuse and insulting.
“Was Bush wrong about the no-fly zone violations? Was Bush wrong about Saddam re-arming his military? Was Bush wrong about Saddam misusing Humanitarian aid?” Was any of the above a clear and direct threat to America? More importantly, was it enough of a threat to be worth the cost of money, material and lives in invading Iraq to stop said offenses? Why haven’t we invaded any other regimes that routinely violate no-fly zones or misuse humanitarian aid?
Sure, ‘Bush was right’ about the three above issues, but it’s worth noting that those three issues were not in question… the rest of the world agreed the UN violations had happened, and that Saddam was re-arming his military (and the rest of the world clearly didn’t think the above was reason enough to invade Iraq, which should tell you something). What WAS in question was the existence of Iraqi WMDs, which brings me to:
“Finally, show me where the lying occurred? Bush acted on the best intelligence that he was presented. It later turned out to be wrong.”
The problem with that statement is that the Bush administration clearly did NOT act upon the best intelligence they were presented. Much ‘solid’ intelligence was presented by our own intel groups, and by our allies, that said there were no WMDs. Bush & Co. CHOSE to listen to the sketchy information provided by unreliable sources that said there were WMDs, and then proceeded to act surprised when it turned out to be completely wrong.
What I know is this: The Bush administration committed American lives to information that couldn’t be verified, and which our best intelligence (as well as the best intel of many of our allies) said was utter fantasy. The information turned out to be untrue, and as time goes by, more and more documents are surfacing that illustrate just how solid and reliable the “there are no WMDs” info was, and how the “sure, there are a bunch of WMDs) info wasn’t.
This means the Bush administration either irresponsibly decided to ignore their best intelligence in favor of shakey intel that supported their goals, or that they’re so incredibly incompetent that they were duped into invading Iraq. Given the evidence, I choose to believe that the Bush administration is not incompetent, which leaves me with ‘irresponsibly decided to ignore their best intelligence in favor of shakey intel,’ which was used to sell an invasion of Iraq to the American public. And at that point, the ‘sell’ becomes a ‘lie’, because you know it’s not necessarily true while you insist that it is. But hey, I mean, Bush isn’t the first President to be caught in a lie, right? Why is it coming as such a surprise to people that Presidents lie to achieve their own ends?
“…later, we found out that the Germans weren’t even close to making an atomic weapon. Does that nullify everything we did in Europe?” Nope. But it’s also got precious little to do with the topic at hand, since we didn’t go to war with Germany over the possibility that they might have atom bombs. In fact, the atom bomb race developed over the course of WWII… meaning that it was more of a consequence than a cause. We suspected Russia of working toward atom bomb capability as well, but we never went to war with them, even though their leader was a genocidal šhìŧhëád who routinely purged his own people, now did we? Wouldn’t that have been a morally just war that the people should have overwhelmingly supported?
Bill Mulligan: “So why are those fighting in Iraq re-enlisting at a higher rate than usual? The army is having trouble getting new enlistees but actually made its target for the last few months–thanks mostly to excellent re-enlistment rates, especially from those in the field of battle.”
Here’s why: recruiters have lowered both their minimal standards and their recruiting goals, making it much easier to clear that lowered bar.
That may be so but the point I was making was that the men and women in the field of battle–the ones that, presumably, would be MOST likely to be angry at Bush for sending them into an unnecessary and losing war–seem to feel differently. They’re voting with their lives.
“You’re just ignoring my points and re-hashing old arguments.
I’ve already pointed out the logical problems with Craig J’s source. If you can refute my analysis, please do so.”
I didn’t ignore anything. I actually read what you said and pointed out to you that you asked me for proof of our causing deaths but then point out to Craig that you know about them but don’t blame U.S. soldiers for them. Fine, neither do I. I just said that dead is dead no matter who did it and all the happy, happy, joy, joy speeches about how great things will be after a war we didn’t need to be in will mean zip to the dead (on either side.) I also said that I know we didn’t kill as many as Saddam in the invasion then he did pre-invasion and that we didn’t set out to try and kill as many civies as we could. Same page there.
The dumb point was that you acted as if you had no idea that any innocents had died in Iraq by U.S. firepower in the invasion or since and demanded proof while turning around and claiming, in a different argument with a different person, that you know about the deaths but that they’re no real big deal. It’s just part of the game and how it’s played. It happened in this war just like it did here and here and here…. I don’t need to refute your point or give you proof. You did it on your own and made your own argument look dumb.
“Finally, I honestly believe that Iraq is worth the effort. That Human nature is worthy of cultivation, regardless of the culture. I’m probably biased because I’ve got a few friends who are from the middle east and there the salt of the Earth.”
So? I’ve friends from there too. Some (not all) of them, by the way, are against the war as well. But if biase falls into the argument then it over rules your throwing out Africa. I have friends from there who have, since coming to America, lost family in the homelands to the many bloody coups. One guy can’t go home because he would be killed if the wrong people saw him. He was a police chief back home and made the local warlords *hit list. What, we should drag America into another war because I know some people and I have a biase? Is that what we should base wars on? Hey, a coworker I had was from China and has friends and family back home that the government made go poof. Let’s invade China and start a war there on his biase. What fun we could all have.
I think you miss the point when I talk about culture and history. I’m not saying that one culure is better then another or that one culture should be saved while another should be left to rot and die. What I am saying is that you have to look at both culture and history to determine the odds of pulling off something like what Bush and crew a talking about or to even decide the worth of spilling the blood of U.S. troops. Flower and sunshine speeches about how worthy human nature is don’t cut it when you have to put it against the cost of human lives and families that will forever be without a son, daughter, mother or father.
The history and the culture of the Middle East make it a very iffy deal. It’s not like we haven’t lost U.S. soldiers lives doing this in the middle East before by the by.
Look, Iraq is not a nation in the sense that it is made up of people with a common heritage, history, religion, or culture or a nation that existed that people came flooding into because they wanted to (like here in the U.S.) and added to the overall growth and greatness of. Outsiders who carved up a beaten Middle East drew its boundaries, created leaders from whole cloth and made up the rules for them to live by. Not the greatest way to start good solid countries. The Middle East as a whole is tribal and so is Iraq. This gets driven home again and again and again in that region. Animosities and blood feuds have raged for generations among the Kurds, Sunni and Shia. There has rarely been anything like a democracy in any of these communities. Let’s all try and catch a cab to Real Street here. When their wars took long pauses or even were to have said to be ended, there was no Maddison, no Monroe, no Jefferson, no Washington or any other great statesmen waiting to step in and step up. It was almost always the next military nut ball or extreme religious wingnut.
Lebanon, in the last century or so, is the best example of a good try at democracy under sorta similar circumstances. It was tried on several occasions with great loss of American lives to keep democracy going in that country. Every dámņëd time, religious and tribal differences screwed the pooch on our efforts. Democracy in Lebanon has ended up a bad joke. It’s in the dustbin of history. Let’s face facts on this. Syria more or less runs that country now. From that and other past experiences, it’s a safe bet to say that if votes are held in Iraq without U.S. presence or influence, Kurds will vote for Kurds, Shia will vote for Shia, Sunnis for Sunnis, and etc. The largest group will control the major offices and it will benefit their people and tribes and their belief system and wants (more so then or system seems to) far more then the others. That means the Shia, just by numbers as it now stands, end up calling the shots. The Sunni and Kurds get to feel bitter and disenfranchised about things, make noises about being repressed and things could get bloody all over again. And it could be topped off with the election of the type of extremist leaders that the people loved but who Bush and company went nuts over when they returned to Iraq from Iran after Saddanm’s fall.
Plus, as I keep saying, Iraq and its people have one other major strike against them. Many of the Shia are determined to have a theocracy. Go look at the constitution that’s being written now and the fights over it. The principles of Islam (and even more so with extremist Islam) as they interpret them are inconsistent with the ideas of democracy. There cannot be a democratic theocracy under those laws. This is all facts from history through just up to my last key stroke. You can’t refute it.
What you’re backing is kinda like giving the car keys to a 10 year old who has never driven, never learned to drive, never learned the rules of the road and never shown any desire to do so and sending him out into rush hour traffic. You’re just asking for a massive wreck and needless death. Just don’t act shocked when you’ve pinned all your hopes on a long shot and it goes splat.
You have to look at all that and see how it tips the scale against pretty speeches. That’s what I’m talking about when I mention the cultures and history of the area. I look at facts and history and you look at your biase and your desire.
Plus, this is at best a side argument. We went in based on the WMD argument. The Bush admin chose WMD’s as their talking points. Bush mentioned other reasons and a side note but spent most of his time talking up WMD’s in every speech. Powell went to the U.N. to talk about WMD’s. Rice went on talk show after talk show talking up not having the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud or WMD related attack on U.S. soil. Bush even said in a State of the Union address that Iraq had kicked the U.N. inspection teams out and started cranking up his old WMD program as a straight up unquestionable fact (problem being that U.N. teams were on the ground in Iraq when he said it.)
Now that every WMD lie has fallen apart we get new argument #19283: We went in to bring freedom to that land. It’s no more true then the WMD lie and it’s a poor argument.
Oh, and if you think I’m being tough on my opinions about the Middle East then you should talk to many of the pro-war people. Back when WMD’s were still the main cause to invade Iraq there were many in the GOP and their talking heads and supporters who said that we were going to use Iraq as the starting point to clean up the “sespool” that was the Middle East and that we were going to “drain the swamp.” Talking points used so much that it became man on the street usage for a while.
All I’ve ever said is that they’re not ready for democracy and that it isn’t worth U.S. deaths to fail in putting one in (again) over there. Hëll, my comments come off as really nice and loving next to some of theirs.
“First off, intervention in Africa against other dictators is a classic straw man argument.”
How? Isn’t it all about saving lives and how human nature is worthy of cultivation, regardless of the culture? Or do you just feel that Africa doesn’t have the kinda lives or culture that counts? Maybe you don’t know enough people from there to support your biase.
For what it’s worth I agree with you on Africa (but it would seem for different reasons.) But that argument of yours hardly holds water or refutes any of Craig’s points about the topic.
Whether Bush wants to intervene or not is a moot point, since, the very moment he would suggest such a thing, his opposition would scream at the top of thier lungs.”
And that screamed opposition stopped him from going into Iraq how?
I don’t think you’re giving Bush and his crew credit. I’m sure they can come up with some great whoppers to spoon feed their supporters just like they did with iraq. And, hey, they’ll just ignore everybody else like they did this time or claim that we all hate America if they don’t go along with Bush and his war.
Whether Bush wants to intervene or not is a moot point, since, the very moment he would suggest such a thing, his opposition would scream at the top of thier lungs.
People are always going to stream about something.
But Bush never started this war on the basis of being a great humanitarian. Yet, you now try and claim that’s the case.
Hëll, I never tire of screaming and yelling about Bush, but he would’ve gotten more support from me if he’d just said from the start “Yeah, Saddam needs to go because he’s a bad man”.
One of the things that pìššëd me off most about Clinton’s years in office was that we got chased out of Somalia when we should have stayed.
That we still ignore Africa to this day when people are being killed in numbers that are far worse than Saddam.
We can look back upon Kosovo and watch Republicans cry foul and conspiracy, but, regardless of the results, it was done on “humanitarian” rationale. But maybe it really comes down to the fact that Kosovo didn’t end up like Iraq has.
Yet, at the end of the day, we’re in Iraq based on lies about WMD and Saddam’s ability to threaten the rest of the world, specifically the US, rather than his own people.
“Plus, as I keep saying, Iraq and its people have one other major strike against them. Many of the Shia are determined to have a theocracy. Go look at the constitution that’s being written now and the fights over it. The principles of Islam (and even more so with extremist Islam) as they interpret them are inconsistent with the ideas of democracy. There cannot be a democratic theocracy under those laws. This is all facts from history through just up to my last key stroke. You can’t refute it.”
i wonder how the people who believe our government should be based on Christianity feel about the prospect of an Iraqi democracy being based on Islam.
“I don’t think you’re giving Bush and his crew credit. I’m sure they can come up with some great whoppers to spoon feed their supporters just like they did with iraq. And, hey, they’ll just ignore everybody else like they did this time or claim that we all hate America if they don’t go along with Bush and his war.”
hey, we could go into nigeria because of the yellowcake they sold Saddam, right?
i wonder how the people who believe our government should be based on Christianity feel about the prospect of an Iraqi democracy being based on Islam.
I wonder how the same folks who praised the Afghanistan Constitution–also based on Islam–now have a problwm with an Iraqi one also based on Islam. Specifically the New York Times.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen this amazing story where a university newspaper, the Southern Illinois Daily Egyptian, was the victim of a hoax seemingly created by one of its reporters/ It involved letters from a precosiouc little girl to her father who was supposedly fighting in Iraq. Full of cute mispellings and details that anyone familiar with the military might have spotted as false (predictably, this does not include anyone at the Southern Illinois Daily Egyptian), the letters followed a painfully predictable path–support for her dad and George Bush, doubts begin to form, An Epiphany, loss of support for the president, and, at last, the death of the father.
Really, you couldn’t make this stuff up. Er, except they did. It was all bogus. The exact details of who knew what are still being worked out (the little girl was played by an actual little girl–she came to the newsroom on sevral occasions, possibly under the belief that she was part of a movie).
http://www.dailyegyptian.com/fall05/kodeehoax.html
(To the newspaper’s credit, they have left up the orginal stories with a disclaimer instead of just erasing them from the web and hoping everyone forgets).
Amazingly (ok, not at all amazingly) this AP story in the Washington Post seems to imply that the whole thing was a Pro-war hoax! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/26/AR2005082600917.html
“I wonder how the same folks who praised the Afghanistan Constitution–also based on Islam–now have a problwm with an Iraqi one also based on Islam.”
Well, I’m not in that camp. I never praised the Afghanistan Constitution as it never had me over the moon.
I was for hitting Afghanistan though since there was that guy Bush forgot about for a while jumping up and down shouting, “Me! Me! Me! I did it! Over here!”
That and the government was almost %100 behind that guy. What was his name….. Been so long since Bush mentioned him… Old Sam Band Wagon?
Bill,
Ðámņ… I’ll go with you on the hoax being something that should have been spotted right off the bat. The letters I read were screaming, “something is wrong here.”
But I gotta ask you where you get the one statement you made about the AP story. I read it twice and can’t figure out how it’s spinning this hoax into a prowar hoax story. How did you get that take off of it?
But I gotta ask you where you get the one statement you made about the AP story. I read it twice and can’t figure out how it’s spinning this hoax into a prowar hoax story. How did you get that take off of it?
from the AP story:
Kim Treger, owner of a women’s shoe and accessories store, said she followed the story from the start but was not surprised to learn it was fake.
“As long as people dig those sentimental stories and have that yellow-ribbon mentality, there are going to be these hoaxes,” she said.
“yellow ribbon mentality”??? That’s a direct slam at the folks who put the yellow “Support the Troops” ribbions on their cars and such. While a case can be made against that sort of thing, I suppose, in no way shape or form was this hoax supposed to appeal to that demographic.
C’mon, Bill. That sentence means one person thinks the story had a particular appeal to that demographic — it tells us precisely nothing about the biases of those who created the story or those who’ve since reported on the hoax.
I’d read about this before you originally posted it, and I didn’t see it as especially political in either direction, at least in intent. So far as I can tell, the reporter’s the primary one at fault (no, I’m not buying his denials that he was duped too), and he was more out to make a name for himself than anything else. It’s not striking me as a hoax with a particularly political agenda in either direction, as unusual as that might be in this day and age.
You want to take that one quote and see it as indicative of the way this whole story’s being presented, fine, but it seems like more than a little bit of a reach.
TWL
Brakyeller-
First off, my point about morality was that most common people use thier personal morality to form a stance on a war. I didn’t say that it would automatically make them pro or against any particular conflict.
I never implied that the Vietnam War was immoral, I just used that as an example of a conflict where a large amount of people chose to protest.
The whole point about morality is that, while wars hinge on complex issues, average people tend to consider them based on personal morality.
By the way, you mis-quoted me. That bit about war being complex appeared before the bits about morality. Pulling it out of context like that totally changes the meaning.
Second, while the other reasons may not have copped the ink that the WMD’s did, that does not eliminate thier validity.
Third, there was plenty of information supporting the prescence of WMD’s. Saddam delayed the weapons inspectors for years. Then, once he let them inside, there were areas that he refused to let them inspect. That’s what Bush was referring to in his State of the Union Speech. That alone is a gigantic red-flag.
In contrast, most of the info NOT supporting WMD’s was only found after we invaded and access to information. Hindsight is twenty-twenty.
Fourth and Final, Wolfowitz was misquoted by Vanity Fair. He said that WMD’s were the core reason, but also that was a total of three main concerns. WMD’s, links to terrorism and human rights abuses under the Saddam regime.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm
Wow. Misquoting must be contagious.
Jerry C.- When I pointed out the mass graves filled my Saddam, the comment was made that Bush murdered thousand of Iraqi’s as well. I asked for proof and was directed to the Iraq Body Count. In response, I noted that most of the civilian fatalaties caused by the U.S. (The minority of civilian fatalities in Iraq, by the way. Most were caused by the opposition forces/Insurgents.) were caused by the initial bombing raids. Within the context of the history of war, this is not considered murder. Otherwise, every U.S. President that caused civilian fatalities during a war (Stretching back to Washington) would be considered a murderer.
That’s not a new argument, that’s a logical progression. A to B to C.
You may say that it’s murder because it’s an unjust war, but that part of the larger debate.
Jerry C. and Craig J.- Going into Africa is a straw man argument, not because they don’t deserve help or that Bush wouldn’t wish to help them, but because his political opposition would not let him. In Iraq, we had violated treaties. With Africa, we don’t have that. Regardless of how people felt about Iraq, we had some legal basis to point to. With Africa, we don’t and the Democrats would be all over that like white on rice.
I think Bush would help Africa if he could. Live Aid founder and organizer Bob Geldof pointed out that, with regards towards Africa, Bush’s administration has been the most positive since Kennedy. In contrast, the European Union’s response is “pathetic and appalling.”
Another guy to trust. He’s been in the thick of it for decades. Speaking of which, did anyone read Michael Yon? Comment please.
C’mon, Bill. That sentence means one person thinks the story had a particular appeal to that demographic — it tells us precisely nothing about the biases of those who created the story or those who’ve since reported on the hoax.
I’d read about this before you originally posted it, and I didn’t see it as especially political in either direction, at least in intent. So far as I can tell, the reporter’s the primary one at fault (no, I’m not buying his denials that he was duped too), and he was more out to make a name for himself than anything else. It’s not striking me as a hoax with a particularly political agenda in either direction, as unusual as that might be in this day and age.
You want to take that one quote and see it as indicative of the way this whole story’s being presented, fine, but it seems like more than a little bit of a reach.
Hmm, maybe. I’ll grant you that when it comes to AP I expect bias so I may see it where none exists.
But for starters, it’s hard to deny a political bias to the hoax. A little girl starts out writing about how her Daddy is gonna fight the bad guys for America and President Bush. Later, when she hears about anti-war protectors, she calls them the “bad people” and has to be assured every night that they aren’t under her bed. But then–faster than you can say “Cindy Sheehan”–she comes to her senses and starts writing about how George Bush lied to her and she is “rily mad” at him. Alas, her awareness comes to late as her daddy is killed, another victim of this senseless war.
There’s a million fake stories they could have told with the premise of a little girl’s daddy going to war but it’s hard to imagine one more hostile to the president. Don’t think I’m reading too much into this.
Given the anti-war, anti-Bush tone of the hoax, I’m just a little leery that the one quote they find from a reader, noted political pundit/shoe saleswoman Kim Treger, leaves one with at least the impression that the hoax was a feel good rally round the flag piece. At least, that’s the impression I would have gotten if I hadn’t read the actual hoaxed letters–AP curiously leaves out their content.
Frankly, after being burned repeatedly by AP–anyone remember their bogus, quickly retracted story that absolutely made up a crowd booing when Bush gave out prayers for President Clinton’s recovery from heart surgery–I find AP just a bit more reliable than Al Jazeer, though less transparently anti-Israel (another blast from the past–the AP headline read Israeli Military Kills Palestinian and 7 paragraphs down you find out the guy had hand grenades and a rifle and was approaching an army outpost.)
Anyway…have you atarted school yet? We had our first day last thursday. Looks like I have a nice group of kids this semester. Yeah, well, they always look good at first…hope springs eternal!
Hmm, maybe. I’ll grant you that when it comes to AP I expect bias so I may see it where none exists.
Have you ever mentioned a news source here that you don’t expect bias from?
But for starters, it’s hard to deny a political bias to the hoax.
No, it’s really not. There’s a political tinge to the story being depicted, sure — but these days, that’s one of the ways you’re going to get a lot of attention for your writing. If you’re going to forge a series of stories in an attempt to make a name for yourself, a four-part series on chartered accountancy isn’t going to do the job. You need something with an arc, and having someone’s opinions change about the war is a really obvious choice.
As the old saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity — and in this case, I’d modify it to “don’t attribute to a political agenda what can be explained by weaselly self-interest.”
As for the AP … can you name a news source you don’t consider biased? Pretty much any source that’s come up here seems to be falling into the “biased” category for you, at least so far as I can remember.
I have a lot of problems with a lot of media outlets — frankly, the fact that Judith Miller still has a job tells me that the NYT is nowhere near as biased towards the left as the typical right-wing pundit would suggest — but these days I frankly don’t think they’re competent enough to have a pervasive bias.
Anyway…have you atarted school yet?
Just inservice days so far — classes start next Wednesday (both for me and for Lisa). Exciting times!
TWL
Off the top of my head it’s hard to come up with any sorurce that isn’t biased…not that this is a surprize. Humans are, by nature, biased. Fine. What I object to is when they let it get in the way of factual reporting.
For me, the AP story seemed to go out of its way to ignore the anti-Bush tone of the haox and inject a curious implication that it was a pro-war hoax. Your mileage may vary. Since the quote in question was an opinion, not at all relevant to the story, I have to wonder why it was included.
As the old saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity — and in this case, I’d modify it to “don’t attribute to a political agenda what can be explained by weaselly self-interest.”
I’m sure Karl Rove would agree. 🙂
I have a lot of problems with a lot of media outlets — frankly, the fact that Judith Miller still has a job tells me that the NYT is nowhere near as biased towards the left as the typical right-wing pundit would suggest — but these days I frankly don’t think they’re competent enough to have a pervasive bias.
She’s their girl. They will circle the wagons around her for as long as they can. It makes for a great story, one in keeping with their own view of their place in the world–noble seekers of truth, willing to pay the ultimate price to protect their source.
Anyway, since when is competence a requirement for pervasive bias?
And keep in mind–I don’t really MIND the left wing bias of the media. In fact, I think it is the secret weapon of the conservatives. It’s one of the reasons that, more often than not (at least lately), it is those on the left who, the day after elections, are wandering around looking confused, wondering “How the hëll did THAT happen?”. When a story gets ignored, like the Air America loan scoop, it jut makes it into a bigger story than it would have been (I’m convinced that the Swift Boat Vets story would have flamed out early if it had not been allowed to come out only in dribs and drabs, with a reluctant press prodded on by bloggers and the like).
If Fox News continues to gain influence in the marketplace I expect much the same phenomona will take place, benefitting the left.
Remo,
“You may say that it’s murder because it’s an unjust war, but that part of the larger debate.”
Ah… I think I see the problem with the exchange between you and I. You want me to show proof of how Bush committed murder when I’m not one of the backers of that line. You and I, as I said before, are on the same page as far as believing civie deaths in war is something that is going to happen no matter what. I’m not walking around calling Bush a murderer. The closest I’ve come to that idea is by saying that Bush is at fault for civie deaths that would not have happened had he not got us into a war we did not have to fight for reasons that turned out to be lies. It may be a fine line but I’ve not crossed it yet.
I would also note that your best line against that argument has been that we haven’t been the cause of the majority of those deaths. That’s still acknowledging that we have caused deaths we needn’t have caused had Bush not lied us into armed conflict.
Peter David:
“Whereas Bush is the ideal of all things conservative: See matters only in terms of black and white; never perceive multiple aspects of any subject; never admit a mistake; do what you’re told.”
This is utter fecal matter. Despite various stances and ideologies that are common between President Bush and actual conservatives, it’d be hard to convince a large group of Conservatives to accept the current POTUS as one of them; the Bush Administration has continued the stupid trend of outspending the government under the prior administration (that’s not fiscally conservative). POTUS has yet to veto a bill in five years (that’s a lot of changes to laws that POTUS isn’t stopping; that’s not conservative). POTUS would rather accomodate illegal immigrants present in the US rather than endorse the enforcement of existing laws, or providing disincentives for local governments to ignore and/or avoid enforcing immigration laws. In fact the POTUS has done very little for the sake of our own border security.
POTUS is many things I like; I voted for him. We may agree on many social issues and I like some of his fiscal ideas, but overall he’s not much of a Conservative.
As for the rest of the stuff, human pride common to every aspect of the political spectrum stops people from admitting mistakes; politicians in high places especially cannot admit mistakes or they endanger other unrelated policies. The only mistake Senator Kerry would admit to was any positive relationship with the President, and not any of his own travesties involving the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Besides: from the start POTUS was mentioning multiple aspects for the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion and then STUPIDLY emphasized only the possibility of WMDs.
Besides: how does one discount the ideas of black and white entirely? I’ve seen people drown in their shades of grey.
“”yellow ribbon mentality”??? That’s a direct slam at the folks who put the yellow “Support the Troops” ribbions on their cars and such. While a case can be made against that sort of thing, I suppose, in no way shape or form was this hoax supposed to appeal to that demographic.”
OK. I can give you that. But only for your POV. I read that line and got something different from it then you did.
I know or know of quite a few people who have those yellow “Support the Troops” ribbons on trees, cars and front doors that don’t like Bush and felt we should not have gone to war. Myself included.
From that POV I read her comment as the same as saying that as long as people will fall for warm and fuzzy stories you’ll get this kind of thing. I took the yellow ribbon ref as a tie to the war (since, you know, that’s what the hoax and the story of the hoax was about.)
But, yeah, I can see were you could take away from it what you did and be 100% right in your personal POV.
Jerry C.-
Fine, thanks for the clarification. When you argue against multiple people and multiple points, it’s easy to slip into generalities.
Second, I acknowledged that Bush caused deaths that he shouldn’t have, I said that the deaths caused were endemic of wars everywhere, good or bad.
That leads into the larger question of the overall “Just-ness” of the war. For that, see my previous posts.
Additionally, check out this post by a blogger at Semi-Random Ramblings. He argues that the greatest indicator of whether a fledgling democracy will succeed or fail is economics, not politics or religion. And Iraq is growing quite well economically. I haven’t checked the figures yet, but it is good food for thought.
And, before anyone points out Saudi Arabia as an exeception to the rule, let me add that the Saudis don’t really have an economy. Basically, it’s just a one-trick-pony (oil) with massive expendatures and no alternative industries and inferstructure
Sorry typo,
Above, that should be “When I acknowledeged”
Rush Job.
“Additionally, check out this post by a blogger at Semi-Random Ramblings. He argues that the greatest indicator of whether a fledgling democracy will succeed or fail is economics, not politics or religion. And Iraq is growing quite well economically. I haven’t checked the figures yet, but it is good food for thought.”
interesting theory. economics are certainly important to living peacefully. however, i believe Iraqi unemployment is around 70% (partly thanks to reconstruction jobs going to foreign workers). perhaps that’s not bad for a country that was recently invaded and had its government overthrown, but it doesn’t sound good.
the GDP can grow alot while the masses remain very poor. i’m not sure that will help democracy.
Remo,
Cool. Now we can get back to making much better use of our time by being insulting and snide towards one another on points that we actually disagree on rather then that mistaken POV stuff.
😉
Speaking of which, did anyone read Michael Yon?
meant to comment on this. This guy is an amazing writer, worth reading no matter what your position on the war is. A throwback to the kind of war reporting they had in WW2, the Ernie Pyle kind of reporting. I just hope he doesn’t end up like Pyle.
Is his stuff being printed anywhere mainstream? It ought to be.
Bill,
Off the top of my head it’s hard to come up with any sorurce that isn’t biased…not that this is a surprize.
No — but it does mean that it’s awfully difficult to take claims of “X is biased” seriously, since it’s in effect saying “X is human.” If the claim is that “X’s bias is getting in the way,” that’s cool, but say that. (One of the things — the very few things, I suspect — where John Roberts and I agree is on precision of language. Students have griped about it for years, to no avail. 🙂
I have a lot of problems with a lot of media outlets — frankly, the fact that Judith Miller still has a job tells me that the NYT is nowhere near as biased towards the left as the typical right-wing pundit would suggest — but these days I frankly don’t think they’re competent enough to have a pervasive bias.
She’s their girl. They will circle the wagons around her for as long as they can. It makes for a great story, one in keeping with their own view of their place in the world–noble seekers of truth, willing to pay the ultimate price to protect their source.
I knew someone was going to misinterpret that; I was in a hurry and didn’t have time to flesh it out earlier.
I’m not talking about the Rove affair — I support her completely in terms of not wanting to reveal sources.
I’m talking about the series of metaphorical bløwjøbš she gave the administration month after month in the run-up to war. Every single bit of scare tactics about WMD’s found its way into one or another article of hers, and in the end it was all bûllšhìŧ.
THAT’s why she shouldn’t have a job, and that’s why I can’t take seriously claims that the NYT is biased towards the left. If it were, there would’ve been far more questions about the lead-up to the invasion than there were; the various studies showing that Gore would’ve won statewide recounts would’ve gotten far more press; today’s editorial talking about the importance of protecting sources wouldn’t make a moral equivalence between Watergate and Monica Lewinsky (read it for yourself and check, they do), and so on.
The “big media is liberally biased” is a pervasive and popular myth which allows the right wing to claim victim status, much the same way that so many Christians can claim with a straight face that they’re being hounded despite running the country and being the overwhelming majority of just about any community you care to name.
Anyway, since when is competence a requirement for pervasive bias?
It’s not, but it’s a requirement for getting it done effectively enough to be noticed. (Of course, as Lisa pointed out to me, if they’re REALLY competent nobody ever notices.)
TWL
THAT’s why she shouldn’t have a job, and that’s why I can’t take seriously claims that the NYT is biased towards the left.
Well, if all it takes is one example, does that mean if I find a case where Fox made a mistake in favor of a liberal cause they will no longer be considered right wing?
At any rate, while Miller was more supportive of the WMD idea than most in the media, her reporting didn’t raise many alarms, in part, because it was consistant with what everyone from Tenet to Clinton believed to be true. I’m not gonna reprint every quote from every Clinton official from Bill and Gore all the way down to Socks the Cat, but they all claimed to know that Saddam had WMD and was probably going to use it again someday.
hëll, the CIA said it was a “slam dunk”. Miller may have sources in the CIA that relayed that to her. The fact that the sources were wrong doesn’t reflect badly on her, necesarily. At any rate, unless they prove that she made up facts there’s no way the NYT can afford to fire a reporter for getting the story wrong. They could kiss goodbye any hope of getting hard hitting stories from the reporters who would be left.
If the claim is that “X’s bias is getting in the way,” that’s cool, but say that.
Well, that’s what I meant. I don’t expect reporters to have to be like me, only with fedoras and a pencil stuck behind their ears. It’s when their bias makes them miss the story or report it in a way that slants the facts to advance an agenda that I’m annoyed.
Judith Miller is hardly “one example” in the extreme sense you’re using — she’s one of the Times’ friggin’ stars, for no apparent reason I can tell apart from her willingness to present Bush press releases as objective facts.
I’m not talking about belief here — I’m talking about presentation of evidence or lack thereof. Sure, Clinton thought Saddam had WMD’s — but, in a point which has been made since the very first time that excuse for Bush has been used, he didn’t present it as a case for imminent invasion. Miller did, and was willing to stretch every point well beyond its usual limits in order to make that case.
Even if you want to treat Miller as an isolated example, you’re ignoring the other examples which were NOT Miller in the previous post.
TWL
speaking of the NYT
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050815/alterman
i highly recommend Eric Alterman’s book “What Liberal Media?”
today’s editorial talking about the importance of protecting sources wouldn’t make a moral equivalence between Watergate and Monica Lewinsky (read it for yourself and check, they do)
Even if you want to treat Miller as an isolated example, you’re ignoring the other examples which were NOT Miller in the previous post.
Well, ok, here’s the quote from the Times:
It’s time for the authorities who jailed Ms. Miller to recognize that continued incarceration is not going to sway a reporter who believes she is making a principled sacrifice. As Jack Nelson, a veteran journalist for The Los Angeles Times, wrote recently: “Without leaks, without anonymity for some sources, a free press loses its ability to act as a check and a balance against the power of government.” He cited Watergate, Iran-contra and President Bill Clinton’s lies about Monica Lewinsky. If Judith Miller loses this fight, we all lose.
I see nothing that equates the 3 issues morally. If one bothers to go read Mr. Nelson’s piece this becomes even less likely:
The stories that have depended on confidential sources, and often on classified information, are legend: Watergate in the Nixon administration, the Iran/Contra scandal and cover-up in the Reagan administration, and President Clinton’s lies in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
More recently, leaks aided the Los Angeles Times’ investigations of the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to ease up on mercury emissions, dissent within the CIA and the State Department over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the alarming number of Army officers quitting after duty in Iraq.
For the record, I don’t think that he is drawing a moral equivalence between Watergate and mercury emmisions either.
I mean, you can’t deny that Clinton’s lies about Monica ARE legend and DID depend on confidential sources, right? mentioning Monica serves another purpose other than facing reality–it points out to some conservatives who may be happy to see reporters jailed that, had it not been for them, Clinton might have successfully gotten away with it.
Sorry, I think this time it’s you who is seeing something more than there really is. I guess the Times could have quoted Mr. Nelson and editted out the Clinton reference; THAt would have sure shown a lack of bias (snort!).
As for the Gore recount, well, they have Paul Krugman on the editorial page lying about how the recounts all showed that Gore would have won. Since reality isn’t what Mr. Krugman wants it to be he’s had to issue a tortured retraction that STILL has innacuracies but let’s give them some credit for trying to keep that dead horse running…
Oooooookay. You think Krugman’s lying, we’re clearly not going to reach any common ground on alleged media bias. Others can wade into that morass if they like; given the start of the school year, I (and probably you, though it’s obviously your choice how to spend your time) have more productive things to do.
TWL
“As for the Gore recount, well, they have Paul Krugman on the editorial page lying about how the recounts all showed that Gore would have won. Since reality isn’t what Mr. Krugman wants it to be he’s had to issue a tortured retraction that STILL has innacuracies but let’s give them some credit for trying to keep that dead horse running…”
you may be referring to a different article, Bill, but i’ve just read http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200508240848.asp and this guy completely fails to refute Krugman’s claim.
Krugman only claimed that the recounts showed that a full recount would have had Gore winning.
under the NYT headed recount, six out of six statewide recounts resulted in Gore winning.
Krugman claims that under the Herald headed recount two out of three statewide recounts resulted in Gore winning.
Luskin responds by pointing to a USA today article that says that according to the Herald headed project, three out of four PARTIAL recounts resulted in Bush winning.
i read the USA today article. nowhere do they mention the results of statewide recounts.
Luskin is guilty of either gross incompetence or clumsy misdirection. when Krugman says, “a equals b,” Luskin says, “no no no. USA today tells us that c actually equals d.”
he does not even attempt to refute Krugman’s claims about the NYT recount.
the only way he catches Krugman in anything is by arguing that Krugman was being misleading when he said “full” recount rather than “statewide” recount.
if you accept the argument that no recount that isn’t statewide could be full, there is no problem with Krugman’s claims.
Oooooookay. You think Krugman’s lying, we’re clearly not going to reach any common ground on alleged media bias.
Did I just that I read a correction by Krugman that stated “[T]he public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald.”
I’ll be generous and take back “lied”. It is a loaded word, overused by too many to describe someone who comes to a different conclusion than they do. He “mistated”.
Others can wade into that morass if they like; given the start of the school year, I (and probably you, though it’s obviously your choice how to spend your time) have more productive things to do.
All too true but I was hoping you’d comment on whether or not you found the stuff on jack Nelson informative.
i’ve now also read an article on this by Michelle Malkin (i think i deserve a medal for that) where she’s quoting Patterico.
Patterico does the same thing as Luskin, and fails to distinguish properly between the statewide and the court-ordered (and yes, Gore requested) recounts.
admittedly, i haven’t found a source other than Krugman citing the two out of three from the Herald study, but since i have yet to find someone who actually refutes THAT claim, i’m gonna take his word for it for now
to give a more complete quotation from Krugman:
“[T]he public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.”