September 14, 2007
TNR Writer: Dishonest journalists "should be named, shamed, and driven out of the profession altogether, never to write again."
The New Republic has a writer named James Kirchick who got righteously indignant when a HuffPo writer plagiarized his original work.
Says Kirchick:Oh James... I think we can come up with just a few journalistic offenses more damning than mere plagiarism. Here's a few for starters. Unquestioningly run fake stories of American atrocities, where you can't even correctly pin down even the country in which one of them takes place. Allow a police force to be accused of murder based upon a claim that was disproven with a simple Google search. Blatantly lie to your readers and your fellow journalists about fact-checking said stories beforehand. Hide the marital relationship between the dishonest author and your staff fact-checker for as long as possible, and then fire the person who discloses it. When you try to justify the fact you didn't do basic fact-checking before you ran these stories by citing experts in your "re-reporting", keep them anonymous and in the dark, asking them only vague, almost meaninglessly general questions. That way, they don't know how they are being used, and they can't be given the whole story (because if they knew all the facts, they'd tell a quite different story). Refuse to acknowledge or print the testimony of authorities and witnesses that directly contradict your claims, and refuse to answer any of the substantive criticism leveled against you, while alleging that others aren't allowing the truth the come out, so that you can avoid resigning in disgrace for another day. These things might be just a bit worse than putting your name on someone's else's story, but I think we all agree with your preferred punishment.
There is no worse offense in the journalistic profession than stealing someone else's work and those who do should be named, shamed, and driven out of the profession altogether, never to write again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:02 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmmm... when do the firings of the editorial staff at The New Republic start, CY?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 15, 2007 02:21 PM (lo4eE)
2
The New Republic complains about journalistic malpractice.
Rich creamy schadenfreude so thick you can roll it up and eat it with a fork. But use a spoon, you'll want to get every drop.
Rich creamy schadenfreude so thick you can roll it up and eat it with a fork. But use a spoon, you'll want to get every drop.
Posted by: Looking Glass at September 16, 2007 05:03 AM (fX5Hp)
3
I'll bet James has lifted quite a bit of his work elsewhere. He's protesting a tad too loudly.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 16, 2007 09:36 AM (/G4Xe)
4
An interesting thing -- if you read the comments of TNR subscribers, there is little sympathy whatsoever for Kirchik. Apparently he has overused this tone of wounded indignation and exhausted people's patience.
Posted by: huxley at September 16, 2007 03:30 PM (QHkH+)
5
Maybe TNR readers realize that if what Kirchick proposes actually happened at TNR, they'd have to hire replacements for just about the entire staff.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 16, 2007 04:13 PM (lo4eE)
September 13, 2007
Media Runs with MoveOn.org/NY Times Ad Rate Story
I'm tickled that Charles Hurt of the New York Post picked up and ran with the ball on this story, which now seems to have generated a surprising (to me) degree of interest. In addition to Hurt's article, Brent Bozell got to talk about it on Fox News Live, and I caught the tail-end of it being discussed on Rush Limbaugh's radio show briefly yesterday.
ABC's Jake Tapper, who first reported what Moveon.org paid for their ad, is on the story again today and reveals that a conservative organization who ran a full page ad the next day paid "significantly more." Oops. It appears that the NY Times may take a much bigger hit to their the credibilty and the bottom line than they ever anticipated as a result. I doubt stockholders will be pleased. (h/t Allah at Hot Air, who kindly remembers where this conflagration over the deep discount started.) Update: Thanks. Update: This is growing far more than I could have ever expected. Fred! and Rudy pile on. and Hot Air has the audio and video. Uncle Jimbo has filed a complaint with the FEC, and though I won't pretend to have the first clue on whether or not this has any "bite," a commenter over at Ace's place discovers something that looks like where they could have potentially run afoul of the law.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:24 AM | Comments (55) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You go, boy! You have become web-death, destroyer of community-based realities.
Posted by: CK MacLeod at September 13, 2007 02:15 PM (dvksz)
2
More than a blog to their credibility. It was an illegal campaign donation. Details here.
Posted by: km at September 13, 2007 05:41 PM (SxR3N)
3
Wouldn't the discount given MoveOn be considered and "in kind" contribution to a PAC and is therefore reportable?
Inquiring minds would like to know!
Inquiring minds would like to know!
Posted by: Ron O at September 13, 2007 06:14 PM (GCmiW)
Posted by: iconoclast at September 13, 2007 06:25 PM (/doyt)
5
While the discount might be ironic and irritating, I think it's much worse bringing the force of law against private business practices. The NYT should take a hit on their credibility, and should be hammered by advertisers who pay more in negotiations, but I hate that this has anything to do with the law at all, and that anyone is talking about 'equal time'.
I don't know how much this has to do with McCain-Feingold but every time something like this comes up I remember why I wouldn't cast a vote for John McCain if a pistol were held to my temple.
I don't know how much this has to do with McCain-Feingold but every time something like this comes up I remember why I wouldn't cast a vote for John McCain if a pistol were held to my temple.
Posted by: Morgan at September 13, 2007 06:33 PM (VDm42)
6
Meanwhile, in his secret underground lair beneath the White House, Karl Rove lights a smuggled Montecristo No. 4, draws heavily, then rubs his hands together as he cackles with fiendish glee.....
"Bwahahahahahaha! MoveOn thought I had moved on, but what fools these mortals be! Those glassy-eyed barking twerps will never know they got their discount from one of my super-secret undercover agents planted in the Times. What a set-up! What a pay-off! I love it when a plan comes together!"
"Bwahahahahahaha! MoveOn thought I had moved on, but what fools these mortals be! Those glassy-eyed barking twerps will never know they got their discount from one of my super-secret undercover agents planted in the Times. What a set-up! What a pay-off! I love it when a plan comes together!"
Posted by: MarkJ at September 13, 2007 06:50 PM (ZFVlP)
7
If they slime out on everything else, at least you punched them in the pocket book... Whatever else happens, they won't be able to charge any other political outfit rate card for the next year or so... Thats gonna hurt.
Posted by: Thomass at September 13, 2007 06:59 PM (JSaQZ)
8
Morgan,
You know that I agree with you in principle, but as a law abiding citizen I just cannot see why I should allow the NY Times to flout the law when it applies to them, do you? It hurts me to do it, but the law is the law and if we let the Times get away with it, where would we be? Selective enforcement of the law leads to injustice and anarchy. That way madness lies.
Snicker.
You know that I agree with you in principle, but as a law abiding citizen I just cannot see why I should allow the NY Times to flout the law when it applies to them, do you? It hurts me to do it, but the law is the law and if we let the Times get away with it, where would we be? Selective enforcement of the law leads to injustice and anarchy. That way madness lies.
Snicker.
Posted by: Moneyrunner at September 13, 2007 07:29 PM (sSRa8)
9
Senator John McCain also left a message for democratic presidential candidates, via Instapundit and The Corner:
"If you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the United States."
"If you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the United States."
Posted by: bnelson44 at September 13, 2007 07:45 PM (dv5bx)
10
"Giuliani also suggested that MoveOn received a discount from The New York Times. The organization did not; they received the rate of $64,575 that the newspaper charges for a special advocacy, full-page, black and white, standby ad."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6919844,00.html
It's cool, though. As long as you claim Jamil Hussein was the AP's source, you'll never have to admit you're wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6919844,00.html
It's cool, though. As long as you claim Jamil Hussein was the AP's source, you'll never have to admit you're wrong.
Posted by: Oops! at September 13, 2007 09:43 PM (2EgQ8)
11
I'm Putz Sulzberger. My company's stock is tanking, my newspaper's circulation is plummeting, and my attempts to make money on the internet have been Edsel-like in their ineptitude. What to do? No problem...I'll punish my capitalist stockholders by selling full-page ads at near-cost to lefty causes. Hey, it's a teachable moment, and that oughta teach 'em!
Posted by: Clioman at September 13, 2007 09:50 PM (CNAh+)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 13, 2007 09:53 PM (HcgFD)
13
I'm not surpried the NY Post is taking an interest in this; anything to trash the competition. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But I think the NYT considers itself immune and vaccinated against this sort of complaining; it's in good with the left-Dhimmies and Manhattanites.
But I think the NYT considers itself immune and vaccinated against this sort of complaining; it's in good with the left-Dhimmies and Manhattanites.
Posted by: Steve White at September 13, 2007 10:02 PM (CkRqT)
14
Well, gosh, CY. I don't know, but I'd guess that perhaps the NYT isn't in the business of selling ad space up until the minute before the paper prints? (Especially since the size of a newspaper on any given day is dependent on the amount of ad inches in that newspaper.)And that perhaps the NYT would have known even days in advance when the MoveOn ad would run?
By the way, I know it hurts K. Lo to do research, but there's another article that explains exactly what standby means. It says "At that rate, an advertiser can request that an ad run on a specific date, but cannot be guaranteed such placement."
And I'd also guess that -- especially since the invention of this crazy new thing I've been hearing so much about, I think it's called the Intertubes -- it takes a matter of minutes to change a single word in an advertisement: a call to whoever designed the ad saying, "Hey, can you go into inDesign, change a single word for me and then e-mail or FTP it back to me?"
Or, hey, here's an idea: maybe MoveOn made SEVERAL VERSIONS of the ad and sent them to the NYT to run the relevant one? You know, like one that said "yesterday," one that said "today," and maybe, if they were feeling ambitious, even one that said "tomorrow."
Of course, I don't know any of this for sure, but then again, neither does K. Lo. And you know, it wouldn't kill you to pick up a phone, call the NYT and MoveOn and find out, and until then, refrain from speculating. Just a suggestion.
By the way, I know it hurts K. Lo to do research, but there's another article that explains exactly what standby means. It says "At that rate, an advertiser can request that an ad run on a specific date, but cannot be guaranteed such placement."
And I'd also guess that -- especially since the invention of this crazy new thing I've been hearing so much about, I think it's called the Intertubes -- it takes a matter of minutes to change a single word in an advertisement: a call to whoever designed the ad saying, "Hey, can you go into inDesign, change a single word for me and then e-mail or FTP it back to me?"
Or, hey, here's an idea: maybe MoveOn made SEVERAL VERSIONS of the ad and sent them to the NYT to run the relevant one? You know, like one that said "yesterday," one that said "today," and maybe, if they were feeling ambitious, even one that said "tomorrow."
Of course, I don't know any of this for sure, but then again, neither does K. Lo. And you know, it wouldn't kill you to pick up a phone, call the NYT and MoveOn and find out, and until then, refrain from speculating. Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Oops! at September 13, 2007 10:04 PM (2EgQ8)
15
What would be really interesting to know is who, exactly, approved the special rate. Certainly it wasn't a sales rep, and I doubt that the director of advertising could have authorized it.
Joe Jackson
Cairo, IL
Joe Jackson
Cairo, IL
Posted by: Joe Jackson at September 13, 2007 10:22 PM (Z+179)
16
Hey, CY... hope ya don't mind me plugging my own little corner of the blogosphere, but I just ran across a relatively new development in this story.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 13, 2007 10:43 PM (lo4eE)
17
Oops!, you certainly seem to know a lot about the the NY Times operates, which really got my interest. Do you perhaps work for the newspaper in some regard?
I only ask because you are writing from midtown Manhattan.
I only ask because you are writing from midtown Manhattan.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 13, 2007 10:45 PM (HcgFD)
18
Jesus, you don't stop just flinging things against the wall to see what'll stick, do you?
I'm actually writing from below 14th Street. And I don't work for the Times. And, um, people do live in midtown, you know. Also, at midnight eastern, you're assuming I'm still at the office? Sure are a lot of sharks you'd have to jump to reach that "HE WORKS FOR THE TIMES!!!!" conclusion.
I have, however, worked for a newspaper, and ad policies don't differ that much. Also, I have the common sense to understand concepts like changing a single word and producing, say, three different versions of an ad in case it runs on a day other than the one you'd hoped for. I wouldn't have thought you'd have needed to work at a newspaper to come up with that idea, but hey -- at least you've proved me wrong about something tonight.
I'm actually writing from below 14th Street. And I don't work for the Times. And, um, people do live in midtown, you know. Also, at midnight eastern, you're assuming I'm still at the office? Sure are a lot of sharks you'd have to jump to reach that "HE WORKS FOR THE TIMES!!!!" conclusion.
I have, however, worked for a newspaper, and ad policies don't differ that much. Also, I have the common sense to understand concepts like changing a single word and producing, say, three different versions of an ad in case it runs on a day other than the one you'd hoped for. I wouldn't have thought you'd have needed to work at a newspaper to come up with that idea, but hey -- at least you've proved me wrong about something tonight.
Posted by: Oops! at September 13, 2007 11:07 PM (2EgQ8)
19
By the way, you can see my location from my IP, but not that my ISP is clearly a residential one? Interesting.
Posted by: Oops! at September 13, 2007 11:13 PM (2EgQ8)
20
I don't think I jumped any sharks, Oops!; you have at least some knowledge of newspapers, are a Times/MoveOn.org apologist, and are located in Manhattan, so it was worth asking the question. The sad fact of the matter is that at least one journalist and blogger from your side have been caught sock-puppeting on blogs in recent memory. With so many people taking their wireless laptops from home to work and back again, the ISP of the moment matters little.
We'll see how this shakes out over coming days, I'm sure.
We'll see how this shakes out over coming days, I'm sure.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 13, 2007 11:30 PM (HcgFD)
21
Useful words, CY: "I'm sorry. I jumped to conclusions, and I was wrong."
You can practice on me first if you want.
You can practice on me first if you want.
Posted by: Oops! at September 14, 2007 12:01 AM (2EgQ8)
22
Funny, Oops!, I didn't see CY get to ANY conclusion, by jumping, crawling, or brachiating. I saw him cite several facts and produce a theory that explained them, and ask you to confirm or deny them. Nothing "conclusive" about any of it.
One has to wonder, though, why you are so defensive about the possibility that you do work for the NYT...
Nah. It really isn't that mysterious, now that I think about it. I wouldn't want to admit I worked for the New York Times, either. It's the "crabs" of resumes, these days.
J.
One has to wonder, though, why you are so defensive about the possibility that you do work for the NYT...
Nah. It really isn't that mysterious, now that I think about it. I wouldn't want to admit I worked for the New York Times, either. It's the "crabs" of resumes, these days.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at September 14, 2007 01:40 AM (wKamV)
Posted by: M. Simon at September 14, 2007 06:10 AM (aciBF)
24
--Useful words, CY: "I'm sorry. I jumped to conclusions, and I was wrong.--
Useful indeed, Oops! When do you plan to use them?
Useful indeed, Oops! When do you plan to use them?
Posted by: Mark L at September 14, 2007 06:21 AM (tPpDh)
25
Well, Mark, considering that CY and others had asserted that MoveOn was given a discount, which they weren't, and that Fleischer's group was charged more (they were offered the same rate, they admit in today's Times -- but they turned it down) and considering that CY and K. Lo then turned to flailing around trying to pretend that they didn't understand how simple it would be to change the word "today" to "yesterday" and vice versa, on this subject, I don't believe it'll be any time soon.
The Kool-Aid must be remarkably tasty, because the fact that you people are still hanging on to this is amazing.
The Kool-Aid must be remarkably tasty, because the fact that you people are still hanging on to this is amazing.
Posted by: Oops! at September 14, 2007 08:47 AM (2EgQ8)
26
Oops, one must also consider the level of service they got for their $65,000.
As I pointed out, Freedom's Watch was told that they could not pick the date or placement of an ad at the $65,000 rate. Yet MoveOn either was the recipient of an incredible coincidence, having a full-page spot "just happen" to open up on the first day of General Petraeus' testimony, or they got more for their $65,000 than other advertisers or potential advertisers got. I, myself, have shown evidence that an advertiser was not offered that level of service for the same price.
It's not just about the price, Oops. It's also what they received for the price. And MoveOn sure appears to have gotten a lot more for their $65,000 than Freedom's Watch was offered.
Your name, however, appears to have been well-chosen. You're making Oops!-es all over the place.
As I pointed out, Freedom's Watch was told that they could not pick the date or placement of an ad at the $65,000 rate. Yet MoveOn either was the recipient of an incredible coincidence, having a full-page spot "just happen" to open up on the first day of General Petraeus' testimony, or they got more for their $65,000 than other advertisers or potential advertisers got. I, myself, have shown evidence that an advertiser was not offered that level of service for the same price.
It's not just about the price, Oops. It's also what they received for the price. And MoveOn sure appears to have gotten a lot more for their $65,000 than Freedom's Watch was offered.
Your name, however, appears to have been well-chosen. You're making Oops!-es all over the place.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 14, 2007 09:14 AM (lo4eE)
27
Well, Mark, considering that CY and others had asserted that MoveOn was given a discount, which they weren't, and that Fleischer's group was charged more (they were offered the same rate, they admit in today's Times -- but they turned it down) and considering that CY and K.
So, Shannon McCaffery speaks the gospel now? She doesn't appear to have confirmed any of this, or if she has she's a really crappy writer for not mentioning it. Looks like you got a little "Oops!" on yourself, my friend. Are you going to hang your hat on her statement that "The organization did not..." as your source, or would you rather try that nifty phrase you offered above?
So, Shannon McCaffery speaks the gospel now? She doesn't appear to have confirmed any of this, or if she has she's a really crappy writer for not mentioning it. Looks like you got a little "Oops!" on yourself, my friend. Are you going to hang your hat on her statement that "The organization did not..." as your source, or would you rather try that nifty phrase you offered above?
Posted by: Pablo at September 14, 2007 09:16 AM (yTndK)
28
Hmmmmm.
It's rather curious that lately there have been a number of liberals across most conservative blogs that are taking the position that asking a question, based on available information, is significantly akin to coming to a conclusion.
*shrug* or maybe it's the same liberal. Who knows really and, more to the point, who cares.
It's rather curious that lately there have been a number of liberals across most conservative blogs that are taking the position that asking a question, based on available information, is significantly akin to coming to a conclusion.
*shrug* or maybe it's the same liberal. Who knows really and, more to the point, who cares.
Posted by: memomachine at September 14, 2007 09:51 AM (3pvQO)
29
Hmmm.
This is what I love about blogs. Some weird or nonsensical piece of silliness crops up and all of a sudden ... a new learning opportunity to find out something both interesting and mostly useless.
BlackFive: NY Times- Standby rate for fellow travelers
Evidently the rate given to MoveOn was a "standby" rate which means that not only can they not specify where the ad goes but also anybody else, *anyone* else, can override the placement of MoveOn's ad by simply offering to pay more.
I.e. a standby advertisement block goes to the highest bidder.
It's this last point that I'm curious about. Hey "Oops!". Why didn't you include that last bit? Since you're so knowledgeable and such.
Frankly I find it hardly credible that they couldn't find another buyer for such a large and well placed spot.
This is what I love about blogs. Some weird or nonsensical piece of silliness crops up and all of a sudden ... a new learning opportunity to find out something both interesting and mostly useless.
BlackFive: NY Times- Standby rate for fellow travelers
Evidently the rate given to MoveOn was a "standby" rate which means that not only can they not specify where the ad goes but also anybody else, *anyone* else, can override the placement of MoveOn's ad by simply offering to pay more.
I.e. a standby advertisement block goes to the highest bidder.
It's this last point that I'm curious about. Hey "Oops!". Why didn't you include that last bit? Since you're so knowledgeable and such.
Frankly I find it hardly credible that they couldn't find another buyer for such a large and well placed spot.
Posted by: memomachine at September 14, 2007 10:00 AM (3pvQO)
30
Still attacking the messenger, ignoring and thusly validating the message. I've yet to see a argument refuting the pretty solid ad from Moveon.
Posted by: Frederick at September 14, 2007 12:21 PM (z7srK)
31
"I've yet to see a argument refuting the pretty solid ad from Moveon."
Right - calling a serving General a traitor is REAL "solid."
Here's a hint as to the underlying arguments - you won't be as likely to find refutations at Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Think Progress, or wherever else you go to lap up your anti-war pablum.
Over the course of two days of questioning, and weeks of "my data vs. your data," I have yet to see a single leftwing or anti-war observer move beyond the most superficial and skewed renderings of, e.g., the GAO report or the Jones report, or even come close to engaging the responses from Petraeus, Crocker, or surge supporters.
Not one Senator or Representative who invoked the GAO report in re nationwide war casualties, for instance, addressed Petraeus' repeated response that it left out the last and most important 5 weeks of the 12-week period during which the surge was in effect. Instead, typically, we saw the same lame talking point recycled over and over again, whether it was from Boxer, from Clinton, from Donner or Blitzen. Not one Senator, Representative, or leftwing reindeer chose to engage the arguments regarding the benchmarks and their relevance.
As for Petraeus himself and his background, we see repeated, obviously one-sided attacks on his background and his career from the usual suspects. He oversaw training for around a year, and then was withdrawn. During the same period under which most of Iraq unraveled, so, too, did most of his work. No fair-minded observer has held him or his tenure responsible. The Democrats themselves, when joining in his 81-0 Senate confirmation vote, already rendered their overall judgment on him and his career. It really should go without staying, Anyone interested in further details, rather than pointless slams, will discover a much larger, and much more impressive story than you'll find in MoveOn's summary of the Democrat/left attacks.
Right - calling a serving General a traitor is REAL "solid."
Here's a hint as to the underlying arguments - you won't be as likely to find refutations at Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Think Progress, or wherever else you go to lap up your anti-war pablum.
Over the course of two days of questioning, and weeks of "my data vs. your data," I have yet to see a single leftwing or anti-war observer move beyond the most superficial and skewed renderings of, e.g., the GAO report or the Jones report, or even come close to engaging the responses from Petraeus, Crocker, or surge supporters.
Not one Senator or Representative who invoked the GAO report in re nationwide war casualties, for instance, addressed Petraeus' repeated response that it left out the last and most important 5 weeks of the 12-week period during which the surge was in effect. Instead, typically, we saw the same lame talking point recycled over and over again, whether it was from Boxer, from Clinton, from Donner or Blitzen. Not one Senator, Representative, or leftwing reindeer chose to engage the arguments regarding the benchmarks and their relevance.
As for Petraeus himself and his background, we see repeated, obviously one-sided attacks on his background and his career from the usual suspects. He oversaw training for around a year, and then was withdrawn. During the same period under which most of Iraq unraveled, so, too, did most of his work. No fair-minded observer has held him or his tenure responsible. The Democrats themselves, when joining in his 81-0 Senate confirmation vote, already rendered their overall judgment on him and his career. It really should go without staying, Anyone interested in further details, rather than pointless slams, will discover a much larger, and much more impressive story than you'll find in MoveOn's summary of the Democrat/left attacks.
Posted by: CK MacLeod at September 14, 2007 01:06 PM (dvksz)
32
A person could get whiplash trying to follow all the various VERSIONS of "truth" involved in this debacle. The bottom line is that MoveOn.org is a group that consists of anti-American hatemongers who have bought and paid for 99% of the Democratic Party and thus, regardless of who is getting the Senatorial or even Presidential paycheck, it's probable that if a Democrat wins in 2008, George Soros will be for all intents and purposes the president of the United States. And that prospect scares the living hell out of me!
Posted by: Gayle Miller at September 14, 2007 01:30 PM (eW43z)
33
Frederick, it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
Please provide proof (and not from MoveOn's website, or any other lefty site) of the veracity of the statements contained in MoveOn's ad.
Betcha can't!
Please provide proof (and not from MoveOn's website, or any other lefty site) of the veracity of the statements contained in MoveOn's ad.
Betcha can't!
Posted by: C-C-G at September 14, 2007 07:30 PM (lo4eE)
34
Hey, CF, you got a good mention in Advertising Age: http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=120480
Posted by: William Teach at September 14, 2007 08:14 PM (NaHh8)
35
Please provide proof of the veracity of the statements contained in MoveOn's ad.
Well these are the sources they used:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22337285-31477,00.html
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_070823iraq_nie_-_kj's_-_08-23-07.pdf
http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/opinion/07krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26hp&OP=c195cb2Q2FQ2AO5wQ2AQ3Cq8xxQ3CQ2AQ3DddQ3FQ2Ad2Q2AdQ3FQ2AxbRFRxFQ2AdQ3FD80Q27j_FZcQ3CjY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20440397/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14198105
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYGX5eW9D0fsF_dr-CFT5nEG0d7w
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/site/newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20440397/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18927.htm
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50713FF355E0C778EDDA10894DF404482
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/washington/07policy.html?ref=todayspaper
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602764.html
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-schakowsky-petraeus-hints-at-decade-long-iraq-presence-2007-08-10.html
Right - calling a serving General a traitor is REAL "solid."
...and when did they do that?
I suppose we'll have this all straightened out when the 5 week gap is closed in data...
Well these are the sources they used:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22337285-31477,00.html
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_070823iraq_nie_-_kj's_-_08-23-07.pdf
http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/opinion/07krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26hp&OP=c195cb2Q2FQ2AO5wQ2AQ3Cq8xxQ3CQ2AQ3DddQ3FQ2Ad2Q2AdQ3FQ2AxbRFRxFQ2AdQ3FD80Q27j_FZcQ3CjY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20440397/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14198105
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYGX5eW9D0fsF_dr-CFT5nEG0d7w
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/site/newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20440397/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18927.htm
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50713FF355E0C778EDDA10894DF404482
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/washington/07policy.html?ref=todayspaper
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602764.html
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-schakowsky-petraeus-hints-at-decade-long-iraq-presence-2007-08-10.html
Right - calling a serving General a traitor is REAL "solid."
...and when did they do that?
I suppose we'll have this all straightened out when the 5 week gap is closed in data...
Posted by: Frederick at September 15, 2007 08:12 AM (z7srK)
36
Frederick, now give us a point-by-point explanation of how all those links validate their assertion that Petraeus has delivered incorrect data to the Congress.
No, I am not going to let you off easy. You wanna play with the conservatives, you gotta learn to prove your points. This ain't DKos, DU, or the HuffPo, an assertion is not enough around these parts.
No, I am not going to let you off easy. You wanna play with the conservatives, you gotta learn to prove your points. This ain't DKos, DU, or the HuffPo, an assertion is not enough around these parts.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 15, 2007 08:26 AM (lo4eE)
September 12, 2007
U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Unload On Petraeus Testimony
Did I say "unload on?" I meant echoed:
No doubt ad writers for MoveOn.org are desperately clawing through thesauri and dictionaries attempting to find synonyms for betrayal that rhyme with "Killip" and "Nicholls." Off-Topic Update:Support citizen journalism. (hey, I only ask for donations one week a year... the other 51 weeks are free!)
At this wind-swept base near the Iranian border, the main points of Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to Congress were met with widespread agreement among soldiers: The American troop buildup is working, but the military needs more time. Most of the soldiers at FOB Delta, some 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, were out on patrol or sleeping when Petraeus' comments were broadcast late Monday and Tuesday in Iraq. But some heard it and others have read about it, and say they agree with their commander's assessment. Staff Sgt. Matthew Nicholls of the 71st Medical Detachment, visiting FOB Delta from his post in southern Iraq to do an assessment, said the military still needs time to clean up mistakes made after the 2003 invasion, including the need to build an Iraqi army from scratch and to secure the borders. "I think our initial assessment was too rosy," he said after reading about the hearings while sitting in the library at the recreation center. "It takes time to build an army and I think we should've secured the borders right away." The 36-year-old from Mobile, Ala., also said American politicians need to be more understanding. "They can be critical because they are politicians and their main goal is to be re-elected, but they see a much more limited piece than the troops on the ground," he said. [snip] Sgt. Nathaniel Killip, 24, of Indianapolis, caught part of the general's presentation on TV and said he agreed that withdrawing all U.S. troops or setting a date to do so before Iraqi security forces have proven themselves ready to take over would open the doors for insurgents to attack. "They're just going to lay back and wait until it's a softer target," he said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:57 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Of course these troops are just children who are sent off to war to die for Haliburton and oil because they can't get a job in America, where unemployment is skyrocketing and the people devestated by Katrina are getting their welfare cut off after only two years. These troops are brain-washed by Dick Cheney to parrot the company line. Clearly, they have no thoughts of their own and have no clue how ill-informed they are. If they knew anything, they'd address the effect on Iraq on global warming and how it keeps children from receiving adequate healthcare in the U.S. instead of oppressing the Iraqis, who were obviously better off under Saddam.*
*(I am sure leftist dopes who read the above for nodding their heads in agreement until they reached this parenthetical)
*(I am sure leftist dopes who read the above for nodding their heads in agreement until they reached this parenthetical)
Posted by: Brian at September 12, 2007 10:31 PM (S7gDM)
Posted by: Tom at September 12, 2007 10:48 PM (+BCbH)
3
Brian, one part of your lefty impersonation rings a little bit false.
To most lefties, most members of the armed forces aren't merely stupid dupes, they're sub-human creatures (lefties won't even call them animals, because animals are always pure and innocent) who enjoy murdering, raping, torturing, looting, and so on and so forth.
The only way to prove that you aren't one of these is to proclaim that every other member of the armed forces is.
For examples, see Scott "I know it was Iraq... or was it Kuwait?" Beauchamp and/or John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry.
To most lefties, most members of the armed forces aren't merely stupid dupes, they're sub-human creatures (lefties won't even call them animals, because animals are always pure and innocent) who enjoy murdering, raping, torturing, looting, and so on and so forth.
The only way to prove that you aren't one of these is to proclaim that every other member of the armed forces is.
For examples, see Scott "I know it was Iraq... or was it Kuwait?" Beauchamp and/or John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 12, 2007 11:41 PM (lo4eE)
4
My son who is stationed in Iraq as part of a joint task force out of Fort Stewart, GA, tells me that he and his fellow soldiers support Gen Petraeus fully. He also said that the support offered by both sides in the US Congress has all of them shaking their heads and wondering what country they are supposed to be representing. "The Democrats haven't a clue what we are doing here, and many of the Republicans who are advocating our withdrawil seem to forget, if they every really knew, what we are doing here. We signed up to serve our country, and to obey the orders of our superiors, and we do it, whether we agree with their decisions or not, but it seems that the "leaders" in congress forgot that they also have a responsibility to us as well," he told me in a recent email. He is his fathers son. I served 22 years in the Army and am and always have been very conservative in my politics and my personal affairs. He makes me proud every time I think of him.
Posted by: Robert Miller at September 13, 2007 12:03 AM (teVF+)
5
>Posted by: Robert Miller at September 13, 2007 12:03 AM
I'd say your pride is well justified. Hell, I'm proud of him and I don't even know either of you!
I'd say your pride is well justified. Hell, I'm proud of him and I don't even know either of you!
Posted by: TBinSTL at September 13, 2007 02:45 AM (2J6+t)
6
No doubt ad writers for MoveOn.org are desperately clawing through thesauri and dictionaries attempting to find synonyms for betrayal that rhyme with "Killip" and "Nicholls."
Why? Does Sgt. Killip have the same track record? I respect the fact that there has been progress militarily...but that was not the justification for the Surge as it was set forth by the President. The Surge was to allow one last chance for political reconciliation within the Iraqi Government, and that hasn't happened. Won't happen.
It pathetically easy to see what you are doing here CY, conflating an everyday average soldier with a politico like Gen. Petraeus, in order to make the criticism leveled at the General by Moveon seem like an attack on the troops. This isn't 2004, and that stuff wont play anymore.
Why? Does Sgt. Killip have the same track record? I respect the fact that there has been progress militarily...but that was not the justification for the Surge as it was set forth by the President. The Surge was to allow one last chance for political reconciliation within the Iraqi Government, and that hasn't happened. Won't happen.
It pathetically easy to see what you are doing here CY, conflating an everyday average soldier with a politico like Gen. Petraeus, in order to make the criticism leveled at the General by Moveon seem like an attack on the troops. This isn't 2004, and that stuff wont play anymore.
Posted by: Frederick at September 13, 2007 11:24 AM (z7srK)
7
I thought it was called moron.com! Well, that's how they act.
Posted by: Frederico at September 13, 2007 11:36 AM (t+Av+)
8
I graduated law school lst December and everything I wrote is something that I heard one time or another from silly liberals there, which includes both students and profesors. I love writing things like that.
For the record, I support our fine General and I believe history will prove Bush correct. And, knowing quite a few military guys, I know what they are all about. I thank God for them every day.
I feel sorry for liberals and Democrats who are so worried about winning an election they can't stand or allow any American success. What do they think, come January 2009, when Bush heads back to the ranch, that terrorism is going to go away? I'll bet a lot of them actually do. I'll take the imperfect action of Bush any day over the perfection of doing nothing.
For the record, I support our fine General and I believe history will prove Bush correct. And, knowing quite a few military guys, I know what they are all about. I thank God for them every day.
I feel sorry for liberals and Democrats who are so worried about winning an election they can't stand or allow any American success. What do they think, come January 2009, when Bush heads back to the ranch, that terrorism is going to go away? I'll bet a lot of them actually do. I'll take the imperfect action of Bush any day over the perfection of doing nothing.
Posted by: Brian at September 13, 2007 11:42 AM (S7gDM)
9
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/13/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at September 13, 2007 12:21 PM (gIAM9)
10
Oh, Brian. You're too generous.
This is bigger for a lot of them then mere elections. This is about how a worldview plays out.
Progressives see themselves as enlightened champions of all that is good and just (and by just, I mean for "the downtrodden"). Never you mind that the results of their actions have very little in common with their rhetoric.
In Bush, you have the ignorant hillbilly whose leadership (greatly flawed as it is) gave 52 million or so people a shot at Democracy in a land and culture utterly bereft of it.
Progressives were on the wrong side of history throughout the Cold War. At the very least many refused to condemn the Communists. Often, they outright supported them. History showed that. For all his self-righteous blather, it was Reagan, not Carter, whose efforts led to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Progressives like to dispute that here, but Eastern Europeans know better. And they're the ones in the position to.
Today, we have an opportunity to utterly change the character of the Middle East. If we fail, we will be tied up in low-level conflicts for some time, on a slow trickle of casualties. Assuming somebody doesn't do anything foolish with a nuke. If we fail and withdraw, we may see the loss of hundreds of thousands if not millions in the long run. But if we succeed, it will have been - again - a conservative who brought real change, real hope and real progress to people who need it most.
It won't be a Progressive.
Even now, for Progressives, how someone dies and who kills them is irrelevant beyond its rhetorical use as a club against America. They cite civilian deaths, but refuse to parse out whether those deaths were deliberately caused by their "minute men."
Hundreds of thousands have been killed throughout the world in the last few decades, and Progressives have rarely batted an eye. Look at Sudan, Angola, Rwanda. Between 1998 and 2003 nearly 4 million people died in the Great African War. How much ink did the New York Times spill over it? Have they advocated much? To draw attention to it would be to draw attention to the uselessness of the UN. And they can't have that. Look at Barack Obama and Kucinich's "Plans" for Iraq.
Like the jihadi, belief is why they fight against the Iraq Campaign. A million deaths is a statistic. A man they once openly supported said that. But Progressive beliefs are something they can't stand to have killed. To have the evil right-wingers bring about a sea change justice, true progress and humanity to the Middle East while they crossed their arms, stomped their feet and said "NO!" is too much.
This is bigger for a lot of them then mere elections. This is about how a worldview plays out.
Progressives see themselves as enlightened champions of all that is good and just (and by just, I mean for "the downtrodden"). Never you mind that the results of their actions have very little in common with their rhetoric.
In Bush, you have the ignorant hillbilly whose leadership (greatly flawed as it is) gave 52 million or so people a shot at Democracy in a land and culture utterly bereft of it.
Progressives were on the wrong side of history throughout the Cold War. At the very least many refused to condemn the Communists. Often, they outright supported them. History showed that. For all his self-righteous blather, it was Reagan, not Carter, whose efforts led to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Progressives like to dispute that here, but Eastern Europeans know better. And they're the ones in the position to.
Today, we have an opportunity to utterly change the character of the Middle East. If we fail, we will be tied up in low-level conflicts for some time, on a slow trickle of casualties. Assuming somebody doesn't do anything foolish with a nuke. If we fail and withdraw, we may see the loss of hundreds of thousands if not millions in the long run. But if we succeed, it will have been - again - a conservative who brought real change, real hope and real progress to people who need it most.
It won't be a Progressive.
Even now, for Progressives, how someone dies and who kills them is irrelevant beyond its rhetorical use as a club against America. They cite civilian deaths, but refuse to parse out whether those deaths were deliberately caused by their "minute men."
Hundreds of thousands have been killed throughout the world in the last few decades, and Progressives have rarely batted an eye. Look at Sudan, Angola, Rwanda. Between 1998 and 2003 nearly 4 million people died in the Great African War. How much ink did the New York Times spill over it? Have they advocated much? To draw attention to it would be to draw attention to the uselessness of the UN. And they can't have that. Look at Barack Obama and Kucinich's "Plans" for Iraq.
Like the jihadi, belief is why they fight against the Iraq Campaign. A million deaths is a statistic. A man they once openly supported said that. But Progressive beliefs are something they can't stand to have killed. To have the evil right-wingers bring about a sea change justice, true progress and humanity to the Middle East while they crossed their arms, stomped their feet and said "NO!" is too much.
Posted by: Amos at September 13, 2007 12:43 PM (gYsFF)
11
Amos
A great response addressing the presumed infallibility of progressives/leftists. Even in this thread, Frederick claimed the ability to see the future ("...Won't happen....")echoes the claimed abilitiy of progressives everywhere to predict the future. And yet they are so often wrong--economics, foreign policy, etc.--that to preserve their worldview requires an orwellian rewrite of history on almost a constant basis.
A great response addressing the presumed infallibility of progressives/leftists. Even in this thread, Frederick claimed the ability to see the future ("...Won't happen....")echoes the claimed abilitiy of progressives everywhere to predict the future. And yet they are so often wrong--economics, foreign policy, etc.--that to preserve their worldview requires an orwellian rewrite of history on almost a constant basis.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 13, 2007 12:53 PM (TzLpv)
12
Frederick speculates that:
"The Surge was to allow one last chance for political reconciliation within the Iraqi Government, and that hasn't happened. Won't happen."
I recall leftists claiming that Anbar would never be pacified in 06. Ooops.
Never say never.
If there has been no reconciliation in the Iraqi government how would one explain Sunni and Shia leaders in Diyala pledging to unite to fight al-Qaida and illegal militias or Maliki reaching out to Sunni anti-terrorist leaders in Al Anbar?
"The Surge was to allow one last chance for political reconciliation within the Iraqi Government, and that hasn't happened. Won't happen."
I recall leftists claiming that Anbar would never be pacified in 06. Ooops.
Never say never.
If there has been no reconciliation in the Iraqi government how would one explain Sunni and Shia leaders in Diyala pledging to unite to fight al-Qaida and illegal militias or Maliki reaching out to Sunni anti-terrorist leaders in Al Anbar?
Posted by: ME at September 13, 2007 03:41 PM (gkobM)
13
The "surge" wasn't even completely in effect until early August. And this idiot Frederick thinks that the political situation should be solved in one month. The intellectual vacancy of the left is stunning!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 13, 2007 05:36 PM (Lgw9b)
14
Frederick, please provide evidence for the claim that the Surge was only to provide breathing room for political reconciliation.
And, since I note that your first link in the above comment was to MoveOn, I should warn you that any attempt to use that website as "evidence" around these parts generally results in gales of laughter at the person trying it. Sort of like trying to use Wikipedia.
And, since I note that your first link in the above comment was to MoveOn, I should warn you that any attempt to use that website as "evidence" around these parts generally results in gales of laughter at the person trying it. Sort of like trying to use Wikipedia.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 13, 2007 07:07 PM (lo4eE)
15
Amos,
Like John Stuart Mill said:
"First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."
Your post proves why Mill was right that all opinions should be listened to and considered. There is some good points in it, along with a lot of nonsense. Thanks for sharing.
Like John Stuart Mill said:
"First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."
Your post proves why Mill was right that all opinions should be listened to and considered. There is some good points in it, along with a lot of nonsense. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Brian at September 13, 2007 11:00 PM (YLzZW)
16
Frederick, since you commented on another post today, I know you have been here.
Please provide the evidence I requested above.
Please provide the evidence I requested above.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 14, 2007 07:32 PM (lo4eE)
17
I note you were back again, Frederick, and still no evidence.
Seems I chased another lefty away from this thread.
Seems I chased another lefty away from this thread.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 15, 2007 08:26 AM (lo4eE)
18
I just caught a tiny part of a long PBS special on Iraq War II, and it seems they could only find mercenaries and doubters in the military over there.
They interviewed two GIs who were coming to the end of the contracts. One was re-signing only for the big bonus. The other was given time to provide a juicy quote - which was that he would never, ever sign up for this military again, then tacked on maybe he would if somebody could explain to him what the hell we were doing over there --- with his point being nobody could, so his never, ever pledge was safe.
Then, when a real news outlet (which I can't seem to locate) would have cut to some balance by showing soldiers who believed in what they were doing and re-signing for more than money....
.....PBS moved on to amplify the last GI's narrative by saying how the country has been lost from the beginning on whether there was a need for a war or not and that we were stuck in a quagmire the next president would have to bail us out of...
So, if PBS can't find soldiers who believe in the mission, I guess this story you posted on your blog can't be true, right....?
They interviewed two GIs who were coming to the end of the contracts. One was re-signing only for the big bonus. The other was given time to provide a juicy quote - which was that he would never, ever sign up for this military again, then tacked on maybe he would if somebody could explain to him what the hell we were doing over there --- with his point being nobody could, so his never, ever pledge was safe.
Then, when a real news outlet (which I can't seem to locate) would have cut to some balance by showing soldiers who believed in what they were doing and re-signing for more than money....
.....PBS moved on to amplify the last GI's narrative by saying how the country has been lost from the beginning on whether there was a need for a war or not and that we were stuck in a quagmire the next president would have to bail us out of...
So, if PBS can't find soldiers who believe in the mission, I guess this story you posted on your blog can't be true, right....?
Posted by: usinkorea at September 16, 2007 02:42 PM (bcdiK)
What Else Remains
At this point in the Scott Beauchamp/The New Republic scandal, only two questions really matter:
- Have the editors of The New Republic spoken with Scott Beauchamp since his July 26 statement outing himself?
- If so, does Beauchamp still stand by his stories as he then claimed?
* * *
Please consider supporting my attempts at investigative citizen journalism via one of the options below. Thanks!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:00 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob thanks for continuing to put this issue up on the screen. I concur with an earlier comment on an earlier article: although it is true that Foer et al, don't care about the truth and are just pandering to their like-minded core readership, your efforts are not at all in vain. They are outed and their credibility is being eroded. Rightly so. Those readers who do have some integrity are going to feel defrauded even if they agree with the "narrative" in general. People will stop citing TNR's articles. At least some writers, even on the left, are not going to want to be associated with it and will sell their wares elsewhere. No matter how accurate some of their reporting may be, no one can ever really be sure whether or not its been fact checked and/or whether its being made up if its published in TNR. The truthers and other rabid lefties won't care. This is a similar situation to what happens when a small-town police department allows one low-life bar or club to remain open for business in a bad part of town, knowing that it is full of criminals, prostitutes and drug dealers. They could shut it down but don't because it serves purpose; at least they have them all concentrated in one place and you can keep tabs on what they are doing. TNR can now become the low-life pseudo-intellectual lefty hang-out, full of oblivious "insiders" who don't have a clue what they look like to the "outsiders." CY is doing great work now in getting them identified for what they really are and helping them move into their new role. The more the public is reminded of what they are, the better.
Posted by: Stephanie at September 12, 2007 06:23 AM (AIF2K)
2
Could we interpret the magazine's continuing silence to mean that Beauchamp himself has backed away from his previous claims?....The problem with doing so, however, is that the retractions would also show that "the Editors" previous claim that "the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published" to also be a dishonest fabrication, and that deception would demand editorial resignations at TNR as well.
Both these things might be true, but, as it stands, this is speculation built upon speculation and then published with the aura of fact--after all, you have a goal of holding the "MSM" to a rigorous standard of veracity. Isn't this kind of "if...then" guesswork the kind of thing you'd bust TNR for if they tried it?
Could we interpret the magazine's continuing silence to mean that Beauchamp himself has backed away from his previous claims?....The problem with doing so, however, is that the retractions would also show that "the Editors" previous claim that "the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published" to also be a dishonest fabrication, and that deception would demand editorial resignations at TNR as well.
Both these things might be true, but, as it stands, this is speculation built upon speculation and then published with the aura of fact--after all, you have a goal of holding the "MSM" to a rigorous standard of veracity. Isn't this kind of "if...then" guesswork the kind of thing you'd bust TNR for if they tried it?
Posted by: nunaim at September 12, 2007 08:17 AM (asdkJ)
3
With TNR and STB staying silent all there can be from this point forward is speculation. Although their silence is damning....I speculate.
Posted by: T.Ferg at September 12, 2007 09:08 AM (2YVh7)
4
Nunaim,
It is not published as fact. It is speculation and clearly stated as such. And T.Ferg makes another very clear point as to the protracted silence from TNR. There is nothing wrong with having a contrarian around here but you often go to such pretzeled lengths to take issue that you look silly.
It is not published as fact. It is speculation and clearly stated as such. And T.Ferg makes another very clear point as to the protracted silence from TNR. There is nothing wrong with having a contrarian around here but you often go to such pretzeled lengths to take issue that you look silly.
Posted by: rbnyc at September 12, 2007 09:25 AM (+IX3y)
5
Bob,
Well done.
And congratulations to you and the Mrs.
And yes, nunaim is a troll.
Over and over again there are contrarian commments for their own sake, adding nothing to the discussion.
Sorry.
It's just the way it is.
Just sayin'.
Well done.
And congratulations to you and the Mrs.
And yes, nunaim is a troll.
Over and over again there are contrarian commments for their own sake, adding nothing to the discussion.
Sorry.
It's just the way it is.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: MTT at September 12, 2007 12:53 PM (1xjmZ)
6
If Beauchamp's position is that he lied to TNR when he’s talking to the army, and that he lied to the army when he’s talking to TNR, he's home free. After all, it’s not a crime to lie to a magazine and it's in the magazine's interest to believe he lied to the army. So everyone is happy and the whole thing drops from sight.
Posted by: Fred at September 12, 2007 12:58 PM (Zs/xF)
7
nunaim -- Beauchamp and TNR have made damaging claims about the military both in Beauchamp's articles and in TNR's indignant counter-attacks after Beauchamp's articles were questioned. It is their responsibility to demonstrate that the articles are true and that they were indeed fact-checked as claimed. So far they have done neither.
Bob Owens has been quite transparent about what he knows and how he knows it. There is no moral equivalence here. Beauchamp and TNR are not conducting themselves with good faith; Bob Owens is.
It's strange to have to explain things like this.
Bob Owens has been quite transparent about what he knows and how he knows it. There is no moral equivalence here. Beauchamp and TNR are not conducting themselves with good faith; Bob Owens is.
It's strange to have to explain things like this.
Posted by: huxley at September 12, 2007 01:00 PM (uEcnT)
8
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/12/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at September 12, 2007 01:24 PM (gIAM9)
9
One of the most interesting aspects of this affair - indeed, to my mind, now the crux of it - is the mysterious statement of recantation supposedly signed by Private Beauchamp, but not released by the military due to "privacy concerns."
Somebody apparently leaked the fact that such a statement exists, but so far the recantation remains unpublished.
I wonder if there is anybody with legal standing to sue the military and force the release of the statement, if it does, indeed, exist?
If he did recant, it would certainly resolve this issue in the minds of most observers.
Somebody apparently leaked the fact that such a statement exists, but so far the recantation remains unpublished.
I wonder if there is anybody with legal standing to sue the military and force the release of the statement, if it does, indeed, exist?
If he did recant, it would certainly resolve this issue in the minds of most observers.
Posted by: Bill Quick at September 12, 2007 01:53 PM (dZ9FW)
10
I could be mistaken but I think Beauchamp himself could ask the Army to release it.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 12, 2007 01:57 PM (Lgw9b)
11
My opinion and clearly stated as such is that
TNR doesn't give a rats a** if the Scott Beauchamp stories are true or not. TNR has a small but loyal readership they have to satisfy. Doing this requires they print stories that fit a certain narrative with which their SBLR can agree.This makes the readership feel superior to all the rest of you rubes because only they have the brains, taste, and discrimination to read and understand the content of TNR. I used to feel the same way about Mad Magazine.
TNR doesn't give a rats a** if the Scott Beauchamp stories are true or not. TNR has a small but loyal readership they have to satisfy. Doing this requires they print stories that fit a certain narrative with which their SBLR can agree.This makes the readership feel superior to all the rest of you rubes because only they have the brains, taste, and discrimination to read and understand the content of TNR. I used to feel the same way about Mad Magazine.
Posted by: Glenn at September 12, 2007 02:18 PM (zp+Xy)
12
AH Yes, He could ask for the release.....you know much as could Kerry have asked for "full and complete" release of his records!
Har!
Har!
Posted by: Duke DeLand at September 12, 2007 02:18 PM (kZio2)
13
In answer to Bill Quick, I deal with privacy matters on a regular basis at a university. I don't claim that the Army and the average university are the same, but I do know the law (written with regard to universities, private employers in the US, etc) generally protects privacy information from lawsuits by outsiders. There are always exceptions, and I suspect the law is some different for the military. That said, I'd be surprised if a lawsuit could shake loose any statement that Pvt. Beauchamp signed.
Posted by: Steve White at September 12, 2007 02:22 PM (D14J4)
14
When I was about 12 years old
Posted by: Glenn at September 12, 2007 02:22 PM (zp+Xy)
15
Hmmm.
*shrug* I believe also that Beauchamp could ask for copies of the documents he has signed and then send them to TNR or anybody else.
*shrug* I believe also that Beauchamp could ask for copies of the documents he has signed and then send them to TNR or anybody else.
Posted by: memomachine at September 12, 2007 02:23 PM (3pvQO)
16
Hmmm.
I assume that TNR is done with their summer vacation?
Or are they onto the super secret double vacation?
I assume that TNR is done with their summer vacation?
Or are they onto the super secret double vacation?
Posted by: memomachine at September 12, 2007 02:26 PM (3pvQO)
17
It appears that Beauchamp did indeed recant - but what he recanted was his first signed statement to the Army in which, apparently, he said he hadn't been involved in the stories.
Later that day he signed a second statement acknowledging he was 'Scott Thomas', along with other stipulations we aren't privy to.
Later that day he signed a second statement acknowledging he was 'Scott Thomas', along with other stipulations we aren't privy to.
Posted by: molon labe at September 12, 2007 03:08 PM (GbgRr)
18
I think a much more interesting question is: given that TNR's "fact checking" appears to have been done in bad faith, just how many people at the magazine knew it was fake all along?
Posted by: Daryl Herbert at September 12, 2007 03:19 PM (YvLui)
19
I can predict the future. This is the future what I can see in my magical eight ball:
SB will not talk until he is released from his military commitment, at which time TNR will let his "true story" be made public.
The "true story" will be that he has been telling the truth the entire time but that pressure from the military had kept him from saying so, and it is not cowardly to shrink in the face of the power of the American Military Industrial Complex.
Great applause and celebrations on the left side of the street for his heroic truth-telling-to-power ensues.
SB will not talk until he is released from his military commitment, at which time TNR will let his "true story" be made public.
The "true story" will be that he has been telling the truth the entire time but that pressure from the military had kept him from saying so, and it is not cowardly to shrink in the face of the power of the American Military Industrial Complex.
Great applause and celebrations on the left side of the street for his heroic truth-telling-to-power ensues.
Posted by: Anga2010 at September 12, 2007 07:13 PM (VwZUL)
20
This is another "fake but true" narrative along the lines of the Mary Mapes story on George Bush and the National Guard.
Even if its not "exactly" true, well, you know that is what happens to people when they go off to war. So, to a liberal, it must be true, because they have been told that it is true, that US soldiers are war criminals, and it is up to TNR and other "heros" of the anti-war movement to bring these beasts to task.
Look at the bevy of anti-military movies now in the pipeline, and it is quite obvious to me that the Left has now decided to attack the military itself, having had no real success in its attack on Bush and his allies. They are now in the business of slandering the military in an effort to turn the American people against the war on terror.
They may succeed. But, if they don't, I would hate to be in their shoes. In my mind some of them have now entered the realm of traitor, and they should be punished as such.
Even if its not "exactly" true, well, you know that is what happens to people when they go off to war. So, to a liberal, it must be true, because they have been told that it is true, that US soldiers are war criminals, and it is up to TNR and other "heros" of the anti-war movement to bring these beasts to task.
Look at the bevy of anti-military movies now in the pipeline, and it is quite obvious to me that the Left has now decided to attack the military itself, having had no real success in its attack on Bush and his allies. They are now in the business of slandering the military in an effort to turn the American people against the war on terror.
They may succeed. But, if they don't, I would hate to be in their shoes. In my mind some of them have now entered the realm of traitor, and they should be punished as such.
Posted by: templar knight at September 12, 2007 07:34 PM (2LEwd)
21
To: Naysayers, namecallers, wankers and other haters up above:
You're wrong. The question I raised goes to the heart of what CY is trying to do here.
There has been a lot of complaint at this and other right-leaning sites about the bias and loose reporting of the "MSM." The blogosphere has been suggested as the antidote, the future of reporting. To that end, CY has spent what I'm assuming are countless hours emailing people and tracking down facts to correct shoddy reporting. He then presents the corrected facts here.
That work seems to me to be undone when raw speculation (and let's be honest: biased speculation, because it puts only the most anti-Beauchamp interpretation on things) is posted side-by-side with factual reportage. At least newspapers have a section labeled "Op/Ed," so you presumably know what you're getting there.
Is this the brave new world of reporting that we're told the Internet will bring to us? Isn't this further blurring the distinction between fact and fancy?
Also: Beauchamp has not issued a statement denouncing pedophilia. Can we assume from his silence that he is a pedophile?
You're wrong. The question I raised goes to the heart of what CY is trying to do here.
There has been a lot of complaint at this and other right-leaning sites about the bias and loose reporting of the "MSM." The blogosphere has been suggested as the antidote, the future of reporting. To that end, CY has spent what I'm assuming are countless hours emailing people and tracking down facts to correct shoddy reporting. He then presents the corrected facts here.
That work seems to me to be undone when raw speculation (and let's be honest: biased speculation, because it puts only the most anti-Beauchamp interpretation on things) is posted side-by-side with factual reportage. At least newspapers have a section labeled "Op/Ed," so you presumably know what you're getting there.
Is this the brave new world of reporting that we're told the Internet will bring to us? Isn't this further blurring the distinction between fact and fancy?
Also: Beauchamp has not issued a statement denouncing pedophilia. Can we assume from his silence that he is a pedophile?
Posted by: nunaim at September 13, 2007 08:39 AM (it+lH)
22
No. As of now there is no reason to believe that he is a pedophile. Your logic it quite poor.
Posted by: rbnyc at September 13, 2007 09:39 AM (3OWLF)
23
Hmmmm.
@ nunaim
Completely wrong there, but nice hysteria. It suits.
*shrug* the simple fact is that TNR went out on a limb over Beauchamp and now have nothing. That is an essential fact. And because of that TNR needs a positive defense that requires Beauchamp's active involvement. That Beauchamp is handling TNR with a 20' pole is clearly indicative that Beauchamp has learned that exaggerating doesn't come without cost.
@ nunaim
Completely wrong there, but nice hysteria. It suits.
*shrug* the simple fact is that TNR went out on a limb over Beauchamp and now have nothing. That is an essential fact. And because of that TNR needs a positive defense that requires Beauchamp's active involvement. That Beauchamp is handling TNR with a 20' pole is clearly indicative that Beauchamp has learned that exaggerating doesn't come without cost.
Posted by: memomachine at September 13, 2007 11:11 AM (3pvQO)
24
Hmmmm
Hmmmm
Hmmmm?
*shrug*
*pick nose*
*belch quietly*
*scratch butt*
It's a sad world when a call for consistency, transparency and clarity are mistaken for hysteria.
Hmmmm
Hmmmm?
*shrug*
*pick nose*
*belch quietly*
*scratch butt*
It's a sad world when a call for consistency, transparency and clarity are mistaken for hysteria.
Posted by: nunaim at September 13, 2007 07:33 PM (22/Qe)
25
nunaim, most people with functional frontal lobes can tell the difference between what TNR attempted to do and what CY is attempting to do.
Why can't you?
Why can't you?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 13, 2007 07:41 PM (lo4eE)
26
It's a sad world when a call for consistency, transparency and clarity are mistaken for hysteria.
Perhaps you should have done that instead of whatever it was you were attempting. The only way things could be any clearer, more transparent or consistent would be for STB to do an in depth interview to clear his name.
He's not interested. What more do you need to know?
Perhaps you should have done that instead of whatever it was you were attempting. The only way things could be any clearer, more transparent or consistent would be for STB to do an in depth interview to clear his name.
He's not interested. What more do you need to know?
Posted by: Pablo at September 13, 2007 09:23 PM (yTndK)
27
Anga2010 Said:
Great applause and celebrations on the left side of the street for his heroic truth-telling-to-power ensues.
Aren't you forgetting the book deal and possible movie deal? I mean, that's what this has been about all along isn't it?
Sorry, blatant speculation there. Is that allowed?
Great applause and celebrations on the left side of the street for his heroic truth-telling-to-power ensues.
Aren't you forgetting the book deal and possible movie deal? I mean, that's what this has been about all along isn't it?
Sorry, blatant speculation there. Is that allowed?
Posted by: Dougie_Pundit at September 14, 2007 12:21 PM (9q1Ch)
September 11, 2007
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:09 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
September 10, 2007
At What Price?
Is there any way for us to know just how much The New York Times charged MoveOn.org for their full page "General Betray Us" advertisement today? Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?
I'd like to know if advertising rates of the New York Times are determined by the political message taking up the ad space, and whether or not a discrepancy in such rates, if one exists, is something that they owe it to their readers to disclose. Update: According to Jake Tapper at ABCNews, the ad cost MoveOn.org approximately $65,000, running in the "A" section of the paper. And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales, their own rate card (PDF) seems rather specific that Advocacy ads, which the MoveOn.org ad most clearly was, are sold at $167,157 for a full-page, full-price nationwide ad.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:56 PM | Comments (76) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am no expert on these issues, but I wonder if an advertising fee below market rates could be construed as a contribution to the MoveOn.org PAC and therefore require reporting to the FEC.
I doubt that the NYT would give a discounted rate even though I have no doubt that they probably fully subscribe to the sentiment behind the MoveOn ad.
I doubt that the NYT would give a discounted rate even though I have no doubt that they probably fully subscribe to the sentiment behind the MoveOn ad.
Posted by: Terry at September 10, 2007 04:41 PM (M7kiy)
2
Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?
Is this question based on any factual information at all, or is it just pot-stirring?
Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?
Is this question based on any factual information at all, or is it just pot-stirring?
Posted by: nunaim at September 10, 2007 04:41 PM (22/Qe)
3
An ABC article linked from Drudge says that the quislings paid $65,000 for the ad.
Posted by: wolfwalker at September 10, 2007 05:42 PM (ecQz3)
4
Would it surprise anyone if the Times paid MoveOn for the ad?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 10, 2007 06:43 PM (Lgw9b)
5
To the NY Times, all advertisers are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 09:10 PM (viASe)
6
You just cracked the big story, the New York Times is liberal and favors liberal organizations and liberal individuals!
In all seriousness, cheap shots from either sides don't do us any good at this point, but I will say the right has made their fair share of cheap shots over the years so I'm not going to break out the violin anytime over this ad and shed any tears. Did New York Times show favortism? Who cares?
The bottom line is the majority of Americans simply do not trust this administration based on their record, so reports that have ties to it lack any serious credibility to a majority of Americans.
Don't you love all these lingo terms? "The Surge!" Sounds like an energy drink!
You can occupy another man's country with 10 billion troops, but you will never win their hearts and minds. Would that work here in the USA, if we were occupied? More troops?
In all seriousness, cheap shots from either sides don't do us any good at this point, but I will say the right has made their fair share of cheap shots over the years so I'm not going to break out the violin anytime over this ad and shed any tears. Did New York Times show favortism? Who cares?
The bottom line is the majority of Americans simply do not trust this administration based on their record, so reports that have ties to it lack any serious credibility to a majority of Americans.
Don't you love all these lingo terms? "The Surge!" Sounds like an energy drink!
You can occupy another man's country with 10 billion troops, but you will never win their hearts and minds. Would that work here in the USA, if we were occupied? More troops?
Posted by: John Bryan at September 10, 2007 09:12 PM (yGOyP)
7
No one ever pays the rate card.
Well, let me rephrase that. Only idiots pay the full rate card. It's like the price of a hotel room that is always printed on a piece of paper behind the door in your room. The 'rack rate' is always some ridiculous figure well beyond what you paid. Same with newspaper rates.
Would be interesting to see how much others paid.
Well, let me rephrase that. Only idiots pay the full rate card. It's like the price of a hotel room that is always printed on a piece of paper behind the door in your room. The 'rack rate' is always some ridiculous figure well beyond what you paid. Same with newspaper rates.
Would be interesting to see how much others paid.
Posted by: Andrew Leyden at September 10, 2007 09:15 PM (iW9O0)
8
If MoveOn got a discount, it's more likely because newspapers are dying and desperate for income.
Posted by: yk at September 10, 2007 09:16 PM (XCeMS)
9
I don't know John, but it did work in Germany and Japan...
Americans do trust their generals though. Tough. Congress in the same poll has the confidence of twelve percent - is that the Americans you are speaking for?
Americans do trust their generals though. Tough. Congress in the same poll has the confidence of twelve percent - is that the Americans you are speaking for?
Posted by: Kathy at September 10, 2007 09:18 PM (W8PQG)
10
Andrew Leyden is correct. The rate card is the first offer which you can pay less than half of, if you play your cards right.
I will add a +1 to his "Only an idiot pays the full rate card." You guys are making much ado about nothing.
I will add a +1 to his "Only an idiot pays the full rate card." You guys are making much ado about nothing.
Posted by: Santiago at September 10, 2007 09:19 PM (euKEY)
11
"You can occupy another man's country with 10 billion troops, but you will never win their hearts and minds. Would that work here in the USA, if we were occupied? More troops?"
Pretty funny these lefties how they can spout empty simplistic platitudes with no connection to the situation under consideration. Just like their brains, disconnected from reality.
As for the NYT, you would think there might be one or two grown ups hanging around the editorial board who would view this add with the disdain such juvenile drivel deserves.
Pretty funny these lefties how they can spout empty simplistic platitudes with no connection to the situation under consideration. Just like their brains, disconnected from reality.
As for the NYT, you would think there might be one or two grown ups hanging around the editorial board who would view this add with the disdain such juvenile drivel deserves.
Posted by: ligneus at September 10, 2007 09:21 PM (+9a5P)
12
Wow, John Bryan, that's some surge! 10 BILLION troops? For you're family's sake, I hope you work with your hands.
Posted by: ecs at September 10, 2007 09:52 PM (8kYDS)
13
Wow, John Bryan, that's some surge! 10 BILLION troops? For you're family's sake, I hope you work with your hands.
Posted by: ecs at September 10, 2007 09:52 PM (8kYDS)
14
But, he's right:
Those Washington State radio guys were (what? punished? - fined? - I don't remember exactly what) for advocating on-air for a cause - it was ruled a contribution.
So, how would a NYT discount NOT be the same?
Those Washington State radio guys were (what? punished? - fined? - I don't remember exactly what) for advocating on-air for a cause - it was ruled a contribution.
So, how would a NYT discount NOT be the same?
Posted by: bobby B at September 10, 2007 10:03 PM (/0mBV)
15
When it's among friendly liberals, it's not called a discount it's regarded as an incentive to defeat the enemy: conservatives.
Posted by: Schratboy at September 10, 2007 10:15 PM (u55iz)
16
Isn't it fun when you can not discuss the real issue when men and women are dying and write about ad fees? What a blogger, you get right to the issue!
Posted by: patco13 at September 10, 2007 10:29 PM (A+/ko)
17
Isn't it fun, patco13, when you and Moveon.org can ignore the fact that "the issue" was discussed today, in full view of tens of millions of Americans, and YOU can pretend it wasn't???
Isn't it fun, patco13, when you can ignore the libel printed in the NYT attacking Petraeus's patriotism?
Isn't that what you clowns complain about all the time?
And isn't it curious, patco13, that the left bleats about "free speech" and loss of civil liberties, and yet can print such libelous, mindless trash in a formerly well-regarded nationalnewspaper now in a death spiral?
Isn't it fun, patco13, when you can ignore the libel printed in the NYT attacking Petraeus's patriotism?
Isn't that what you clowns complain about all the time?
And isn't it curious, patco13, that the left bleats about "free speech" and loss of civil liberties, and yet can print such libelous, mindless trash in a formerly well-regarded nationalnewspaper now in a death spiral?
Posted by: fulldroolcup at September 10, 2007 10:41 PM (3MdJC)
18
[ligneus at September 10, 2007 09:21 PM]
Ten billion troops in Iraq translates to one trooper every 42 feet in all directions from border to border. Considering that and knowing our troops, I don't think we'd be overly concerned with winning hearts and minds while outnumbering the country's population 400 to 1. The big concern would be where to stack all the soccer balls. Syria, maybe?
Ten billion troops in Iraq translates to one trooper every 42 feet in all directions from border to border. Considering that and knowing our troops, I don't think we'd be overly concerned with winning hearts and minds while outnumbering the country's population 400 to 1. The big concern would be where to stack all the soccer balls. Syria, maybe?
Posted by: Dusty at September 10, 2007 10:42 PM (1Lzs1)
19
Don't ya love how the lefties try (and in some cases) succeed in changing the topic away from something that sure looks to a non-newspaperman like me like (gasp) favoritism?
Imagine the lefty furor if it was discovered that FoxNews charged, say, The Heritage Foundation less for a 60-second ad than they charged MoveOn!
Imagine the lefty furor if it was discovered that FoxNews charged, say, The Heritage Foundation less for a 60-second ad than they charged MoveOn!
Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 10:46 PM (viASe)
20
The issue is an ad discribing a four star General of the US Army as a liar by a group of insurgents financed by George Soros and The New York Times,an American newspaper, running the ad at any price. The discount if true is a declaration of support for MO.org.
Posted by: Clyde Eagle at September 10, 2007 10:46 PM (kRYEo)
21
"The big concern would be where to stack all the soccer balls."
That has to be the line of the night....
That has to be the line of the night....
Posted by: notropis at September 10, 2007 10:52 PM (rWATM)
22
I'm guessing it wouldn't be nearly as inexpensive to smear an upstanding Democrat leader. Oh. Wait. There are no upstanding Democrat leaders.
Posted by: Lone Ranger at September 10, 2007 10:53 PM (zgXhM)
23
What a waste of $65000.00
Posted by: Riteaidbob at September 10, 2007 11:06 PM (7FgWm)
24
And all that after some media outlets refused to run ads and commercials by a group advocating for our continued presence and mission in Iraq.
It is fine with me that the NY Times runs MoveOn's ad. It's fine with me if they deeply discounted that ad.
But, when they try to point out their impartiality as journalists and someone points out that maybe that's not entirely supported by their actions, then the NY Times has very little fig leaf remaining to hide behind.
As a capitalist, I don't care if NY Times gives MoveOn a whole page for free. Just expect some questions and ridicule from some quarters.
And I wonder how the NY Times shareholders feel about them deeply discounting ad rates in favor of some groups, while share price has dropped from near $50 to about $21 in the last five years?
It is fine with me that the NY Times runs MoveOn's ad. It's fine with me if they deeply discounted that ad.
But, when they try to point out their impartiality as journalists and someone points out that maybe that's not entirely supported by their actions, then the NY Times has very little fig leaf remaining to hide behind.
As a capitalist, I don't care if NY Times gives MoveOn a whole page for free. Just expect some questions and ridicule from some quarters.
And I wonder how the NY Times shareholders feel about them deeply discounting ad rates in favor of some groups, while share price has dropped from near $50 to about $21 in the last five years?
Posted by: John in CA at September 10, 2007 11:09 PM (PQVEt)
25
Most newspapers have general advertising rates, national rates, and contract rates, which are considerably lower. If Moveon.org is a contract advertiser, they would get a much reduced rate. Contract advertisers are normally required to run a minimum amount of lineage on a per day, per week or per month basis. I don't read the NYT, so I don't know if they run ads on a regular basis or not. The greater the lineage, lower the rate.
Posted by: Sara at September 10, 2007 11:15 PM (hGL+y)
26
You can offer discounts to anyone - but you have to offer the same discounts to everyone. I would assume it is the same for publishing as it is for wholesale.
For example - I can give you different discounts per the quantity you buy. It gets further complicated if I have a special going on (buy today and save!) So, it is easy to manipulate the system. However, theoretically, once I set up a rate, I have to offer it to anyone who comes in and qualifies for quantity and time frame. I can't just sell my product cheaper to whites than to blacks ...or cheaper to big stores who are purchasing in the SAME quantities/time frame as the little ones.
Also as in hotel rooms, you can offer different rates to different groups. Example, AAA, Government, Senior's etc.
But what is illegal is if you are offering deals to one group and refusing them to another group based on an arbitrary "I like them better".
For example, I can not offer quantites of X purchased before X to one group cheaper than another just cause I like one better than the other.
It would be impossible to prove on a one/two time basis - but a pattern would be illegal.
For example - I can give you different discounts per the quantity you buy. It gets further complicated if I have a special going on (buy today and save!) So, it is easy to manipulate the system. However, theoretically, once I set up a rate, I have to offer it to anyone who comes in and qualifies for quantity and time frame. I can't just sell my product cheaper to whites than to blacks ...or cheaper to big stores who are purchasing in the SAME quantities/time frame as the little ones.
Also as in hotel rooms, you can offer different rates to different groups. Example, AAA, Government, Senior's etc.
But what is illegal is if you are offering deals to one group and refusing them to another group based on an arbitrary "I like them better".
For example, I can not offer quantites of X purchased before X to one group cheaper than another just cause I like one better than the other.
It would be impossible to prove on a one/two time basis - but a pattern would be illegal.
Posted by: Becky at September 10, 2007 11:20 PM (CTxe6)
27
My guess is MoveOn.org is not Macy's, Bloomingdales or Sacks -- regular big ticket advertisers, who either on their on or in conjunction with the brands they're marketing, are regular full-page ad buyers and should be able to garner the lowest rates for both full page ads, spot color or full color. It's unlikely MoveOn would do more than one ad a year like this, which is why the ad has become so publicized.
The question then becomes -- if the Times really did give MoveOn a discount they wouldn't normally deserve -- did their rate come in at equal or lower than the cost the Times' regular full-page advertisers are paying for their retail sales rate. If that was the case, the folks at Federated or one of the other big ad buyers might be able to play a little hardball with the paper for the upcoming Christmas shopping season.
The question then becomes -- if the Times really did give MoveOn a discount they wouldn't normally deserve -- did their rate come in at equal or lower than the cost the Times' regular full-page advertisers are paying for their retail sales rate. If that was the case, the folks at Federated or one of the other big ad buyers might be able to play a little hardball with the paper for the upcoming Christmas shopping season.
Posted by: John at September 10, 2007 11:27 PM (NpMC3)
28
Suckers would only pay the asking price on newspapers, especially one that costs that much. However, I have never seen a 61% savings on a one-time ad buy. I have seen up to 50% in extreme cases, but that is when the media entity was desperate to fill a spot that had been previously reserved, then had fallen through.
It also depends on how many ads MoveOn.org has over the course of their contract with the NYT, if any. If you, as an advertiser, will promise to run, say 2000 column inches over the course of a year, the advertiser will get a reduced rate on column inches.
My guess is that the NYT sales rep saw the $65,000 offer was a lot better than the $0 it would have gotten for running an ad to promote NYT products or putting in actual news. The sales rep probably gets some sort of big commission out of this ad purchase. However, MO.org probably should have received no more than a 40% discount on the ad, IMO.
As for bobby B's comment about the NYT being fined for this, or considered a contribution, it won't happen. The people on the radio were punished because the airwaves are owned by the public, according to FCC rules. Newspapers are considered private entities, which is why newspapers have more freedom when it comes to this sort of thing. We can't go to the FCC and invoke the Fairness Doctrine and try to get a $65,000 ad to refute the ad. If the laws have changes, please let me know. My Communications Law class was 10 years ago.
That is why, when libs try to "Hush Rush" with the Fairness Doctrine, they might actually do it if libs and Dems control the White House and Congress. Rush has explained this on his show, and I won't go into it here.
I find the ad abhorrent, and I hope the NYT shows better judgment next time this happens (probably not). They have a right of refusing to run the ad as well as a right to run an ad. I'm not here to defend the NYT on this particular issue; just to give some insight into media buying and media laws.
It also depends on how many ads MoveOn.org has over the course of their contract with the NYT, if any. If you, as an advertiser, will promise to run, say 2000 column inches over the course of a year, the advertiser will get a reduced rate on column inches.
My guess is that the NYT sales rep saw the $65,000 offer was a lot better than the $0 it would have gotten for running an ad to promote NYT products or putting in actual news. The sales rep probably gets some sort of big commission out of this ad purchase. However, MO.org probably should have received no more than a 40% discount on the ad, IMO.
As for bobby B's comment about the NYT being fined for this, or considered a contribution, it won't happen. The people on the radio were punished because the airwaves are owned by the public, according to FCC rules. Newspapers are considered private entities, which is why newspapers have more freedom when it comes to this sort of thing. We can't go to the FCC and invoke the Fairness Doctrine and try to get a $65,000 ad to refute the ad. If the laws have changes, please let me know. My Communications Law class was 10 years ago.
That is why, when libs try to "Hush Rush" with the Fairness Doctrine, they might actually do it if libs and Dems control the White House and Congress. Rush has explained this on his show, and I won't go into it here.
I find the ad abhorrent, and I hope the NYT shows better judgment next time this happens (probably not). They have a right of refusing to run the ad as well as a right to run an ad. I'm not here to defend the NYT on this particular issue; just to give some insight into media buying and media laws.
Posted by: MoRepublican at September 10, 2007 11:40 PM (efGom)
29
It hasn't hit the MSM yet, but the little dears also defaced the Vietnam Memorial with oil Friday night, permanently damaging the granite slabs. Some of the names have been rendered illegible.
The National Park Service tried to pressure-wash the stuff off today, but by the time they learned about it and came up with the plan it had sunk into the granite. Experts are saying that if steam doesn't lift it, removing the panels and steaming them in a horizontal position might help.
They also trashed the nurses' memorial statue. They couldn't get to the Three Soldiers (it's surrounded by thornbushes) but they tried.
We can sure be grateful for Markos's contribution to public discourse, and for the inspiration he is to his barbarian hordes. Although there's no proof that the vandals were inspired by him and not one of Soros's other villainous cat's paws like the HuffPo or DU.
The National Park Service tried to pressure-wash the stuff off today, but by the time they learned about it and came up with the plan it had sunk into the granite. Experts are saying that if steam doesn't lift it, removing the panels and steaming them in a horizontal position might help.
They also trashed the nurses' memorial statue. They couldn't get to the Three Soldiers (it's surrounded by thornbushes) but they tried.
We can sure be grateful for Markos's contribution to public discourse, and for the inspiration he is to his barbarian hordes. Although there's no proof that the vandals were inspired by him and not one of Soros's other villainous cat's paws like the HuffPo or DU.
Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien at September 10, 2007 11:51 PM (LkeNv)
30
Mo - great info. But in this case, I don't think it would matter if they are a private co or not. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) insists that any deal that you make with one customer must be offered to all like customers.
It would be difficult to prove, for the reasons that you explained. But, given that the discount is so extreme, I can't help thinking that one could make the case that it was indeed a contribution.
It would be difficult to prove, for the reasons that you explained. But, given that the discount is so extreme, I can't help thinking that one could make the case that it was indeed a contribution.
Posted by: Becky at September 10, 2007 11:59 PM (CTxe6)
31
Mo is correct - newspapers are a special case. They have to comply with employment laws, environmental laws, criminal laws, etc., but anything involving the content of what they publish is beyond most regulation.
Advertising enjoys less protection than unpaid content (what is loosely described as "news" in the vernacular), but the only recourse is generally the courts, using the libel laws. NYT v Sullivan set the standard fairly high even for advertising.
As far as rates go, newspapers can charge pretty much what they want. True, if large retail advertisers get wind of someone getting an undeserved discount it helps their own negotiating strength. In the NYT's case, though, their ad lineage and revenues are already under pressure, and getting even a discount rate for an extra page of advertising can seem worth whatever risk it runs to a paper in that position.
Suing newspapers has never been a dependably profitable occupation, no matter what the cause.
Advertising enjoys less protection than unpaid content (what is loosely described as "news" in the vernacular), but the only recourse is generally the courts, using the libel laws. NYT v Sullivan set the standard fairly high even for advertising.
As far as rates go, newspapers can charge pretty much what they want. True, if large retail advertisers get wind of someone getting an undeserved discount it helps their own negotiating strength. In the NYT's case, though, their ad lineage and revenues are already under pressure, and getting even a discount rate for an extra page of advertising can seem worth whatever risk it runs to a paper in that position.
Suing newspapers has never been a dependably profitable occupation, no matter what the cause.
Posted by: Jim Addison at September 11, 2007 12:23 AM (uqc7t)
32
John, you are correct so far as it goes. However, a contract advertiser may only contract for say a small 1x3 or 2x5 ad that runs regularly and make the big buy once a year or less. Wouldn't matter, if they are under the contract rate, they get that rate for the big or small. Also, there are different rate cards for retail, classified, display and specialty sections that might include things like an entire section devoted to "back to school," or "Valentines, as examples.
The ad today most likely falls under the Display rate card. These rate cards (again at most newspapers) are broken down even further into: general rates, contract rates, national rates, and if the paper puts out area/targeted editions, they might have a rate based on say a single edition to one of the boroughs, targeted to those residents.
The ad today most likely falls under the Display rate card. These rate cards (again at most newspapers) are broken down even further into: general rates, contract rates, national rates, and if the paper puts out area/targeted editions, they might have a rate based on say a single edition to one of the boroughs, targeted to those residents.
Posted by: Sara at September 11, 2007 12:25 AM (hGL+y)
33
I doubt someone from Moveon actually placed the ad. Does anyone know if they have a PR firm, because if they do, that PR/advertising firm most likely placed the ad as an agent for their client. If that is the case, the PR/advertising firm would be the contract advertiser at the Times and may have dozens of accounts they manage, all of which would give them a pretty deep discount. An advertising firm that handled several big Times' advertisers would have mucho clout with the newspaper.
Posted by: Sara at September 11, 2007 12:33 AM (hGL+y)
34
I've been a media buyer for a small ad agency for the last year. I never pay rate card for half or full page, other than in certain special supplements to magazine issues. 60% off is a sweet deal, but not unprecedented, though. I've been able to get that discount for clients as well, on a number of occasions.
Print outlets can and do have different ad price structures for different clients. It's not illegal in the slightest.
Print outlets can and do have different ad price structures for different clients. It's not illegal in the slightest.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at September 11, 2007 12:48 AM (ojIab)
35
The Times ought to give them more low cost space.
I can't think of a better way to get them to show their true colors and provide support for the Republicans.
It's a toofer.
I can't think of a better way to get them to show their true colors and provide support for the Republicans.
It's a toofer.
Posted by: M. Simon at September 11, 2007 01:34 AM (aciBF)
36
Kathy - Many of the top U.S. military generals were against this war, from the beginning - that's why Rumsfeld fired so many of them.
Even those who supported it opposed the way that Bush and Rumsfeld managed the war.
So if we had "trusted our generals" earlier, perhaps the disasters of the past few years could have been averted.
And to compare Germany and Japan to Iraq is consistent with the geopolitical philosophy of liberal internationalism. It is based upon a flawed, left-wing utopian vision. Socialism doesn't work, whether it's practiced within our borders, or outside of them.
Even those who supported it opposed the way that Bush and Rumsfeld managed the war.
So if we had "trusted our generals" earlier, perhaps the disasters of the past few years could have been averted.
And to compare Germany and Japan to Iraq is consistent with the geopolitical philosophy of liberal internationalism. It is based upon a flawed, left-wing utopian vision. Socialism doesn't work, whether it's practiced within our borders, or outside of them.
Posted by: Aakash at September 11, 2007 03:01 AM (ggjm8)
37
Actually, M. Simon is only partially right. There are other benefits in addition to showing true colors and helping Republicans.
The more semi-freebies that Putz Sulzberger gives to such 'causes,' the worse it gets for NYT's bottom line, and the more its market share and stock value continue to erode. (But hey, it takes real acumen to run an institution like the NYT into the ground.)
So that's what...a threefer? fourfer?
The more semi-freebies that Putz Sulzberger gives to such 'causes,' the worse it gets for NYT's bottom line, and the more its market share and stock value continue to erode. (But hey, it takes real acumen to run an institution like the NYT into the ground.)
So that's what...a threefer? fourfer?
Posted by: Clioman at September 11, 2007 06:00 AM (CNAh+)
38
It should be seen as a violation of compaign contribution reporting laws, but Bush is too gutless to act, just like he will be too gutless to put Kusinich behind bars for treason.
Posted by: Spartacus at September 11, 2007 07:12 AM (+jnQm)
39
This is a clear example of political prejudice cutting into corporate profitability. I smell a shareholder suit in the making.
chsw
chsw
Posted by: chsw at September 11, 2007 07:35 AM (WdHqZ)
40
It is unfortunate that dueling is now illegal; sure some lives were lost too soon, but it had a tendency to keep discourse within some reasonable bounds. For example, would that personage Landros have been more circumspect in his attempt to smear Petraeus if the good General could have called him out to the dew-pearled lawns of the Mall for an early morning shootout, and, when finished, have gone looking for Soros?
Posted by: Fred Beloit at September 11, 2007 08:15 AM (Z7x7c)
41
so the right developed and entire cable news network and a vast array of a.m. talk show hosts for the sole purpose of maligning a sitting president over a blow job, but this one ad is just way too far for the left? just another example of the faux controversialism so typical of the right.
Posted by: english teacher at September 11, 2007 08:46 AM (mdNLU)
42
Well, it's obvious that they don't teach critical thinking in English classes anymore, but I'm surprised that they apparently also no longer teach spelling or capitalization.
Posted by: notropis at September 11, 2007 09:17 AM (cP1DU)
43
There's a lot of misinformation posted about to what extent newspaper space rates are negotiable. They generally aren't. While broadcast rate cards are just the starting point for haggling and negotiation, newspapers generally stick to rate card rates, subject to a whole set of standard discounts newspapers offer – 15% commission for advertising agencies, frequency discounts (and yes, those can be earned by running a whole bunch of small, relatively cheap placeholder ads), local-advertiser discounts, print-ready discounts, etc. But the inflexibility of newspaper space rates suggests that either someone at the Times stupidly charged the wrong category's set of rates (e.g., local retail instead of national advocacy) or that the paper's subsidization of moveone.org is even more egregious.
Posted by: bruce Goldman at September 11, 2007 09:22 AM (bwelC)
44
I'm afraid the capless teacher of English has purposefully misunderstood. It was never really about the BJ. It was always about perjury.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at September 11, 2007 09:27 AM (Z7x7c)
45
Actually Aakash, Rumsfeld fired so many senior officers because he was tasked with cleaning up the Pentagon. Which as we all know, was a ridiculous mess of bureaucrats, and senior officers getting their tickets punched before they went private. Their mindset over there was completely cold war, and had been that way for some time. While they made some major mistakes in the run up to, and during the war, (name one war we've been involved in that did not have any), the Administration was spot on in their ideas for streamlining the Pentagon, and our military. They, of course, fought him every step of the way with targeted leaks, and innuendo. Hell Rumsfeld started his house cleaning before 9/11, but it did not start getting a lot of attention until we kicked off the Afganistan/Iraq adventures. I've always been amazed that the leftists in this country, who generally have little use for the military, will take anything said by military members as holy writ, if it fits they way they want things to be. Yet they will do or say anything to discredit a very credible military member, if his report does not fit their narrative.
Posted by: Brad at September 11, 2007 10:27 AM (tznHw)
46
John B -- Would occupation work in the U.S.? It did.
Or maybe I've just missed the ongoing insurgency in South Carolina, etc.
Or maybe I've just missed the ongoing insurgency in South Carolina, etc.
Posted by: TheProudDuck at September 11, 2007 12:22 PM (0V2xx)
47
The question isn't how much MoveOn paid. It's why the Times ran the ad in the first place.
Posted by: km at September 11, 2007 12:41 PM (SxR3N)
48
Kathy - Many of the top U.S. military generals were against this war, from the beginning - that's why Rumsfeld fired so many of them.
Even those who supported it opposed the way that Bush and Rumsfeld managed the war.
Posted by: Aakash at September 11, 2007 03:01 AM
--------------
Keep drinking that liberal kool ade!
Even those who supported it opposed the way that Bush and Rumsfeld managed the war.
Posted by: Aakash at September 11, 2007 03:01 AM
--------------
Keep drinking that liberal kool ade!
Posted by: veritas at September 11, 2007 01:29 PM (NEiv1)
49
Brad and "veritas":
"liberal" ??
To use that argument against me, on the day of the first College Republicans meeting - and especially on the day of the 9/11 anniversary, is particularly striking.
The sources I referenced, in that comment, are very conservative websites.
The division, in the Pentagon, and the Bush administration, between the military officials & generals vs. Rumsfeld & the civilians, was well known...
Even the war hawks, such as those at the conservative National Review and at the neoconservative Weekly Standard pointed this out... and responded by touting the old saying that "War is too important to be left to the generals."
No one is denying the strong divide that existed between the senior Pentagon officials & U.S. military officials vs. those such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. This divide was exemplified when Tom Clancy almost came to blows with Richard Perle, over these matters.
Tom Clancy is a staunch conservative and Reagan Republican, who has a strong following among the military community.
Richard Perle is a Scoop-Jackson Democrat.
If you looked at the bottom of that comment I posted above, you can see that I am criticizing the left-wing foreign policy principles.
"Liberal" ?
We can disagree on the issues - but if you're going to use personal insults...
Then please, please... Don't use that one!
"liberal" ??
To use that argument against me, on the day of the first College Republicans meeting - and especially on the day of the 9/11 anniversary, is particularly striking.
The sources I referenced, in that comment, are very conservative websites.
The division, in the Pentagon, and the Bush administration, between the military officials & generals vs. Rumsfeld & the civilians, was well known...
Even the war hawks, such as those at the conservative National Review and at the neoconservative Weekly Standard pointed this out... and responded by touting the old saying that "War is too important to be left to the generals."
No one is denying the strong divide that existed between the senior Pentagon officials & U.S. military officials vs. those such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. This divide was exemplified when Tom Clancy almost came to blows with Richard Perle, over these matters.
Tom Clancy is a staunch conservative and Reagan Republican, who has a strong following among the military community.
Richard Perle is a Scoop-Jackson Democrat.
If you looked at the bottom of that comment I posted above, you can see that I am criticizing the left-wing foreign policy principles.
"Liberal" ?
We can disagree on the issues - but if you're going to use personal insults...
Then please, please... Don't use that one!
Posted by: Aakash at September 11, 2007 02:16 PM (ggjm8)
50
Not so surprising that the liberal liars at the NYT would be eager to give a discount to move on. They need something to steal the thunder from the recent surge success reports.
Posted by: deathstar at September 11, 2007 03:53 PM (gkobM)
51
"The bottom line is the majority of Americans simply do not trust this administration based on their record, so reports that have ties to it lack any serious credibility to a majority of Americans.'
And that lack of trust has been created and is promoted by the left wing media!!
And that lack of trust has been created and is promoted by the left wing media!!
Posted by: Horny Toad at September 11, 2007 11:55 PM (tITNm)
52
Aakash, on this board, and on several others where you post, your comments seem to conform more to the leftists thought processes, than they do to the conservatives. I apologize if my use of the old axiom, "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck", mislabeled your political affiliations. As far as Clancy vs Perle is concerned, that was because of some rather uncharitable comments made by Perle about one General in particular, and not the military as a whole. I don't recall if the General was Powell, or Franks, but I do remember the incident. I do know that Clancy had nothing but respect for Rumsfeld, and what he was trying to do. Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, he was fought every step of the way by the bureaucrats in the Pentagon/DoD.
Posted by: Brad at September 12, 2007 06:29 AM (tznHw)
53
The final bill could be $0.00. The NYT Chief Financial Officer (CFO) can let the account receivable age over 120 days, continue to send out statements, and finally the CFO can write-off a portion or all of the debt deemed to be uncollectible.
Posted by: Tarawa at September 12, 2007 11:25 AM (86RGg)
54
So, what exactly is the issue here? That the NYT might have maybe kinda sort gave MoveOn a discount (although you have done nothing to prove that, and more likely they did not)? Are you so terrified of facts on the ground that you'll fill an entire page with empty supposition?
And about the NYT ad, apart from calling Patraeus "Betray Us", the ad provided a great deal of factual support for that assessment, which no doubt none of you read. Have a look at that. Do any of you contest the factual claims made in the ad? Did MoveOn lie? Or did they just reach a different conclusion than you did?
Finally, regarding the Patraeus/Betray Us pun, consider this. As the MoveOn ad and a mountain of written testimony certifies, Patraeus has been dramatically, fundamentally wrong about most every assessment he's yet provided about Iraq since 2004. Everyone knew as far back as February that in September he was going to address Congress and say that the surge is a success. Most Americans do not believe him. That is, we feel that he is not being truthful. Now, if your job is to protect the US people and Constitution, but instead you distort the truth to serve a purely partisan agenda that is damaging the country on many levels, can you not see how that could be regarded as betrayal?
And about the NYT ad, apart from calling Patraeus "Betray Us", the ad provided a great deal of factual support for that assessment, which no doubt none of you read. Have a look at that. Do any of you contest the factual claims made in the ad? Did MoveOn lie? Or did they just reach a different conclusion than you did?
Finally, regarding the Patraeus/Betray Us pun, consider this. As the MoveOn ad and a mountain of written testimony certifies, Patraeus has been dramatically, fundamentally wrong about most every assessment he's yet provided about Iraq since 2004. Everyone knew as far back as February that in September he was going to address Congress and say that the surge is a success. Most Americans do not believe him. That is, we feel that he is not being truthful. Now, if your job is to protect the US people and Constitution, but instead you distort the truth to serve a purely partisan agenda that is damaging the country on many levels, can you not see how that could be regarded as betrayal?
Posted by: Paul at September 12, 2007 11:42 AM (+TIo+)
55
I did some checking.
In 2004, the Web browser Firefox got 2,500 people to donate $30 each for a full-page ad in the Times – $75,000.
http://news.com.com/Firefox+smashes+funding+target/2100-1032_3-5422785.html
In 2004, the Web browser Firefox got 2,500 people to donate $30 each for a full-page ad in the Times – $75,000.
http://news.com.com/Firefox+smashes+funding+target/2100-1032_3-5422785.html
Posted by: Michael Marizco at September 12, 2007 12:08 PM (YLUvH)
56
Maybe for once, you slobbering morons could actually contact someone at the NYT and get them on record about this.
Maybe, but not likely, since it's more fun to sit here in your own little pity party (teh left is so mean to da general, boo hoo)
Maybe, but not likely, since it's more fun to sit here in your own little pity party (teh left is so mean to da general, boo hoo)
Posted by: Woody at September 12, 2007 12:27 PM (DCUPs)
57
I wonder if conservatives could buy enough NYT stock to force the sacking of the editors....
Posted by: Brad Jensen at September 12, 2007 12:40 PM (SK0po)
58
we're all waiting for your detailed investigation into precisely where and how Petraeus got the numbers for his pretty graphs. without independent verification from skeptical citizen journalists like yourself (and the hordes of pseudonymous demographers and epidemiologists who follow your lead), there's no way we can know if his numbers are even as credible as the infamous Lancet report. get to work!
Posted by: cleek at September 12, 2007 02:21 PM (+dx2l)
59
This is not unprecedented - I was able to get a 55% discount on ad rates for a full page ad, and later found out that I could have gotten over 60% (the publisher was a bit desperate), or 65% for paying immediately.
Posted by: Dave at September 12, 2007 02:27 PM (4ylWZ)
60
NOBODY PAYS RATE CARD
As a former ad exec at a newspaper and later as a contracted media buyer dealing with national accounts, I can attest that this isn't that much out of the ordinary.
Newspapers are hurting and bundled deals are extremely common. When I was working for the Sacramento Bee it was common to throw in a 'freebie' in the normal ROP (run of press) section when clients signed up for big advertising plans online or in the paper.
Furthermore, advertising and editorial are MORTAL ENEMIES in most papers. At the Bee they were on completely different floors and if you were an ad guy you didn't talk with the ed folks or vice versa. In 95% of all papers the ad and editorial divisions are separate all the way up to the publisher. No publisher, especially at a large paper like the NYT is going to care about a pathetic sum like $100k.
This is a non-story. Get over it and do some research next time before you open your mouth.
As a former ad exec at a newspaper and later as a contracted media buyer dealing with national accounts, I can attest that this isn't that much out of the ordinary.
Newspapers are hurting and bundled deals are extremely common. When I was working for the Sacramento Bee it was common to throw in a 'freebie' in the normal ROP (run of press) section when clients signed up for big advertising plans online or in the paper.
Furthermore, advertising and editorial are MORTAL ENEMIES in most papers. At the Bee they were on completely different floors and if you were an ad guy you didn't talk with the ed folks or vice versa. In 95% of all papers the ad and editorial divisions are separate all the way up to the publisher. No publisher, especially at a large paper like the NYT is going to care about a pathetic sum like $100k.
This is a non-story. Get over it and do some research next time before you open your mouth.
Posted by: dkellogg at September 12, 2007 03:00 PM (O5q6Q)
61
And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales...
...I will proceed to talk about it anyway as if I do.
...I will proceed to talk about it anyway as if I do.
Posted by: Xanthippas at September 12, 2007 03:04 PM (018Z+)
62
Brad,
It is clear, from your last comment, that you did not even follow the link I provided, or bother to look up any information, about that "incident."
This came about due to the simmering divisions between the military leaders and generals and senior uniformed Pentagon officials (such as Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Norman Schwarzkopf, etc...), who were urging restraint, and expressing strong concerns about going to war against Iraq - versus the civilians, such as those in the Department of Defense and the Office of Special Plans.
In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
"He was saying how [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said: Look..., he's supposed to think that way. And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."
Tom Clancy, a staunch conservative and Reagan Republican, is against the Iraq war. In his recent book about these Iraq war issues, he and General Anthony Zinni are strongly critical of Rumsfeld and the other war supporters in the Bush adminstration.
On television interviews, Clancy has also made strong criticisms of both Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
And as for your comments about me: I have been participating in Blogosphere discussions for over five years now, and my main weblog will have its 5-year 'Blogiversary' in three days. I don't want to get into this here, but I am recognized by major national organizations, for my conservative activism, and have been recognized by Republican Party officials as well.
I come from the perspective of traditionalist conservatism... This philosophy was more prevalent, among Republican leaders, during the Clinton years - because it was much easier for conservatives and Republicans to oppose the explansion of the 'welfare-warfare' Leviathan state.
Nonetheless, many top conservatives have been expressing the same sentiments as I have, during the past several years... As I have witnessed first-hand, during our many trips to Washington, D.C., and elsehwere.
Among those organizations that have made similar assertions as I have [i.e. - your alleged "leftists thought processes"] include the American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation, the Conservative Caucus, and many leaders/activists with the Leadership Institute, Young America's Foundation, Freedom Works, the Heritage Foundation, and conservative movement leaders such as William F. Buckley, Richard Vigurie, Phyllis Schlafly, and Howard Phillips.
If you look into the political-science aspects of these contemporary situations, you will find that many complex issues (such as the current Iraq war) are not about Republican vs. Democrat, or even Right vs. Left.
There are intra-movement cleavages within both sides of the ideological divide.
This fact has been recognized by both conservatives and liberals, war supporters and war opponents alike.
Clifford D. May:
Iraq war is not about just left vs. right
There is a lot more information available... Within just the past several years, in fact, entire books have been written about this very issue, by liberal hawks such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Peter Beinart (about why the Left must support warfare and globalism), as well as by conservative or neoconservative war supporters, and war opponents.
These liberal internationalists recognize that the reason many of their fellow leftists are not joining them in being pro-war, like they have in the past, is because of their opposition to George W. Bush. Rich Lowry, the conservative editor of National Review, refers to this as "the rise of reactionary liberalism."
For the top Democrat leaders, it also has to do with shameless political opportunism, especially around election time. I addressed this issue yesterday, and pointed out that many conservative leaders, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and David Horowitz have pointed out that many of President Bush's policies being implemented in Iraq were first advocated by the Democrats.
In the Blogosphere however, many of the strong supporters of the Iraq war, have been left-of-center; there is even a blogroll for liberal hawks.
And even your fellow conservative supporters of the Iraq war have pointed out the ideology underlying this war is consistent with left-wing and Democrat foreign policy traditions; this is true from both a historical and philosophical perspective. As for the aftermath of the war situation, they have said the same thing - this war is consistent with the leftist Wilsonian vision of liberal internationalism, something even its strong supporters have pointed out.
I don't think I should go any further into this here, as I have written about this issue, more in-depth, numerous times in the past, and as I said, there have been a number of books published in recent years, about these very topics, involving political science, and intra-movement schisms.
There are liberals and conservatives on all sides of this issue.
It is clear, from your last comment, that you did not even follow the link I provided, or bother to look up any information, about that "incident."
This came about due to the simmering divisions between the military leaders and generals and senior uniformed Pentagon officials (such as Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Norman Schwarzkopf, etc...), who were urging restraint, and expressing strong concerns about going to war against Iraq - versus the civilians, such as those in the Department of Defense and the Office of Special Plans.
In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
"He was saying how [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said: Look..., he's supposed to think that way. And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."
Tom Clancy, a staunch conservative and Reagan Republican, is against the Iraq war. In his recent book about these Iraq war issues, he and General Anthony Zinni are strongly critical of Rumsfeld and the other war supporters in the Bush adminstration.
On television interviews, Clancy has also made strong criticisms of both Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
And as for your comments about me: I have been participating in Blogosphere discussions for over five years now, and my main weblog will have its 5-year 'Blogiversary' in three days. I don't want to get into this here, but I am recognized by major national organizations, for my conservative activism, and have been recognized by Republican Party officials as well.
I come from the perspective of traditionalist conservatism... This philosophy was more prevalent, among Republican leaders, during the Clinton years - because it was much easier for conservatives and Republicans to oppose the explansion of the 'welfare-warfare' Leviathan state.
Nonetheless, many top conservatives have been expressing the same sentiments as I have, during the past several years... As I have witnessed first-hand, during our many trips to Washington, D.C., and elsehwere.
Among those organizations that have made similar assertions as I have [i.e. - your alleged "leftists thought processes"] include the American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation, the Conservative Caucus, and many leaders/activists with the Leadership Institute, Young America's Foundation, Freedom Works, the Heritage Foundation, and conservative movement leaders such as William F. Buckley, Richard Vigurie, Phyllis Schlafly, and Howard Phillips.
If you look into the political-science aspects of these contemporary situations, you will find that many complex issues (such as the current Iraq war) are not about Republican vs. Democrat, or even Right vs. Left.
There are intra-movement cleavages within both sides of the ideological divide.
This fact has been recognized by both conservatives and liberals, war supporters and war opponents alike.
Clifford D. May:
Iraq war is not about just left vs. right
There is a lot more information available... Within just the past several years, in fact, entire books have been written about this very issue, by liberal hawks such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Peter Beinart (about why the Left must support warfare and globalism), as well as by conservative or neoconservative war supporters, and war opponents.
These liberal internationalists recognize that the reason many of their fellow leftists are not joining them in being pro-war, like they have in the past, is because of their opposition to George W. Bush. Rich Lowry, the conservative editor of National Review, refers to this as "the rise of reactionary liberalism."
For the top Democrat leaders, it also has to do with shameless political opportunism, especially around election time. I addressed this issue yesterday, and pointed out that many conservative leaders, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and David Horowitz have pointed out that many of President Bush's policies being implemented in Iraq were first advocated by the Democrats.
In the Blogosphere however, many of the strong supporters of the Iraq war, have been left-of-center; there is even a blogroll for liberal hawks.
And even your fellow conservative supporters of the Iraq war have pointed out the ideology underlying this war is consistent with left-wing and Democrat foreign policy traditions; this is true from both a historical and philosophical perspective. As for the aftermath of the war situation, they have said the same thing - this war is consistent with the leftist Wilsonian vision of liberal internationalism, something even its strong supporters have pointed out.
I don't think I should go any further into this here, as I have written about this issue, more in-depth, numerous times in the past, and as I said, there have been a number of books published in recent years, about these very topics, involving political science, and intra-movement schisms.
There are liberals and conservatives on all sides of this issue.
Posted by: Aakash at September 12, 2007 07:28 PM (ggjm8)
63
Aakash, let's to keep the Greenwald-length comments to a minimum, okay? Just write a blog entry, and drop in a link.
And while I appreciate you put into this effort, you destroyed your credibility (and I quit reading) when you cited Capitol Hill Blue for your first link. I take it you are not aware that this guy has been making up stories, quotes, and sources for 20 years?
And while I appreciate you put into this effort, you destroyed your credibility (and I quit reading) when you cited Capitol Hill Blue for your first link. I take it you are not aware that this guy has been making up stories, quotes, and sources for 20 years?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 12, 2007 07:48 PM (HcgFD)
64
I wonder if conservatives could buy enough NYT stock to force the sacking of the editors....
Not likely. As I understand it, the NYT shares are set up with two classes of shares. The important shares, the voting shares I believe, are closely held by the Sulzberger family and cronies. Or something like that. Anyway, there won't be any shareholder revolts by the common shareholder.
There has been some noise made by some of NYT institutional shareholders, like one of the investment houses, maybe Goldman-Sachs. Maybe some one like that could force some changes in the NYT boardroom. But not you and me buying a hundred shares.
Not likely. As I understand it, the NYT shares are set up with two classes of shares. The important shares, the voting shares I believe, are closely held by the Sulzberger family and cronies. Or something like that. Anyway, there won't be any shareholder revolts by the common shareholder.
There has been some noise made by some of NYT institutional shareholders, like one of the investment houses, maybe Goldman-Sachs. Maybe some one like that could force some changes in the NYT boardroom. But not you and me buying a hundred shares.
Posted by: John in CA at September 12, 2007 08:39 PM (PQVEt)
65
Is it just me, or does Aakash bear a resemblance to your garden-variety Ron Paul supporter?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 12, 2007 09:13 PM (lo4eE)
66
I had preferred not to post any more comments in this thread, but I wanted to respond to Brad's personal remarks. I probably won't be saying anything else here, as part of that dialogue (even if he does).
And I linked to only two CHB pieces... the same information was also in a variety of other sources; it was general knowledge at the time. As I noted in my first response to Brad and 'veritas' above, even pro-war conservative publications, such as National Review, pointed out the same thing. NR editor Rich Lowry said that this type of divide, between the military and civilian national leadership, "is typical in wartime."
And I linked to only two CHB pieces... the same information was also in a variety of other sources; it was general knowledge at the time. As I noted in my first response to Brad and 'veritas' above, even pro-war conservative publications, such as National Review, pointed out the same thing. NR editor Rich Lowry said that this type of divide, between the military and civilian national leadership, "is typical in wartime."
Posted by: Aakash at September 12, 2007 09:23 PM (ggjm8)
67
it was general knowledge at the time.
At one time, it was "general knowledge" that the sun went around the earth.
Does that mean that it was, or is, true?
At one time, it was "general knowledge" that the sun went around the earth.
Does that mean that it was, or is, true?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 12, 2007 10:39 PM (lo4eE)
68
Well, Bob, the NY Post picked up your story, and apparently they see something unusual about the deep discount, as well (and they ought to know something about how newspaper advertising pricing works, being in that business and all).
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm
Kudos!
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm
Kudos!
Posted by: notropis at September 13, 2007 10:33 AM (cP1DU)
69
To those critical of GEN Patraeus - do your research on BOTH sides of the issue. He is an honorable man receiving great reviews from those who matter - the troops on the ground and the Iraqis starting to see results of his change in the US philosophy.
As for the liberal arguments, I often have a similar argument with colleagues on various issues relating to the Iraq War, Fox News, etc. But interestingly enough when I challenge them on their criticism of Fox by asking them if they actually watch it, they almost without exception say they don't waste their time. So how can their opinions be informed? Did they ever learn critical thinking? Why do you think Fox exists? It is because it reflects the opinions of a large portion of Americans who have a right to their own opinions whether you like it or not. I make an effort to watch all the networks and read all the News websites. So who knows better, someone who only watches what they agree with? Or a politician fed his opinions by his party and 20ish staffers hired for things other than their political acumen or a 4 Star career military officer? Or journalists who go to Iraq but might as well be in the US since they sit in the green zone and phone it in? Read Michael Yon and blogs from those actually on the ground. The liberal left says I am an illiterate moron because I disagree with them. I will put my experience and education against any of them. I am a retired Army Officer, a combat veteran with a disability that makes every day hurt, a son in EOD (Bomb disposal for you civilians) and a daughter in the Intel community. I speak several languages besides English, have a Master's in political science and I lived/served overseas in many places for over a dozen years...By now you might have guessed I am a supporter of the Iraq war and the Bush administration. Mistakes - some big ones - were made, but the overall goals are good and important. You are entitled to your opinion, but bring facts to the table, not things that were "common knowledge" and then we can dance.
As for the liberal arguments, I often have a similar argument with colleagues on various issues relating to the Iraq War, Fox News, etc. But interestingly enough when I challenge them on their criticism of Fox by asking them if they actually watch it, they almost without exception say they don't waste their time. So how can their opinions be informed? Did they ever learn critical thinking? Why do you think Fox exists? It is because it reflects the opinions of a large portion of Americans who have a right to their own opinions whether you like it or not. I make an effort to watch all the networks and read all the News websites. So who knows better, someone who only watches what they agree with? Or a politician fed his opinions by his party and 20ish staffers hired for things other than their political acumen or a 4 Star career military officer? Or journalists who go to Iraq but might as well be in the US since they sit in the green zone and phone it in? Read Michael Yon and blogs from those actually on the ground. The liberal left says I am an illiterate moron because I disagree with them. I will put my experience and education against any of them. I am a retired Army Officer, a combat veteran with a disability that makes every day hurt, a son in EOD (Bomb disposal for you civilians) and a daughter in the Intel community. I speak several languages besides English, have a Master's in political science and I lived/served overseas in many places for over a dozen years...By now you might have guessed I am a supporter of the Iraq war and the Bush administration. Mistakes - some big ones - were made, but the overall goals are good and important. You are entitled to your opinion, but bring facts to the table, not things that were "common knowledge" and then we can dance.
Posted by: GraySix at September 13, 2007 02:19 PM (Q6uje)
70
I've never in my life 86yr's read so much just per CRAP... What the hell do you people do to make a living ... Seems like you are all on shooting this verbal junk... Get real ,, there's a war on whether you like ity or not ....
Posted by: Tom at September 13, 2007 04:55 PM (RaG9k)
71
For reasons implied above, this is likely going to be my final comment post, in this discussion thread.
The divide that existed, in the run-up to this war, between the uniformed military officials (in the Pentagon and State Department) vs. the civilian leadership, is "factual" - I provided some reference links above, but this is something that was recognized, and reported on, by all sides, including the supporters of the Iraq war... It was they, in fact, who expressed concern that the pressure from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and military leadership would dissuade President Bush from going to war against Iraq. Even many of the generals who didn't oppose going to war against Iraq were opposed to the war plans being proposed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowtiz.
War hawk Eliot Cohen wrote an entire book about this schism [from a historical perspective - but also meant to relate to the contemporary situation], and the two leading pro-war magazines on the Right, National Review and the Weekly Standard, discussed this divide as well, while repeating the old claim that: "War is too important to be left to the generals."
Regarding prior dialogues: As a life-long activist for the Right, and a nationally recognized leader in the Republican Party (and someone who has been working to directly support our current servicemembers and veterans), I frame my arguments from a traditionalist conservative perspective. The current and former U.S. military leaders I have cited, in my blog entries and comment posts about this topic, are also conservatives; some of them served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush, and several are among those who presidential candidate George W. Bush cited, as his strong supporters, in his first run for the White House.
My involvement in the conservative & GOP movements - at both the local and national levels - is one reason I nearly had a coronary when seeing the "liberal" comments from Brad and 'veritas' above, and posted that lengthy response.
If we are going to do name-calling - then please, please, please don't use that one!
The divide that existed, in the run-up to this war, between the uniformed military officials (in the Pentagon and State Department) vs. the civilian leadership, is "factual" - I provided some reference links above, but this is something that was recognized, and reported on, by all sides, including the supporters of the Iraq war... It was they, in fact, who expressed concern that the pressure from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and military leadership would dissuade President Bush from going to war against Iraq. Even many of the generals who didn't oppose going to war against Iraq were opposed to the war plans being proposed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowtiz.
War hawk Eliot Cohen wrote an entire book about this schism [from a historical perspective - but also meant to relate to the contemporary situation], and the two leading pro-war magazines on the Right, National Review and the Weekly Standard, discussed this divide as well, while repeating the old claim that: "War is too important to be left to the generals."
Regarding prior dialogues: As a life-long activist for the Right, and a nationally recognized leader in the Republican Party (and someone who has been working to directly support our current servicemembers and veterans), I frame my arguments from a traditionalist conservative perspective. The current and former U.S. military leaders I have cited, in my blog entries and comment posts about this topic, are also conservatives; some of them served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush, and several are among those who presidential candidate George W. Bush cited, as his strong supporters, in his first run for the White House.
My involvement in the conservative & GOP movements - at both the local and national levels - is one reason I nearly had a coronary when seeing the "liberal" comments from Brad and 'veritas' above, and posted that lengthy response.
If we are going to do name-calling - then please, please, please don't use that one!
Posted by: Aakash at September 13, 2007 05:15 PM (0UOO4)
72
So there's a divide between "military and civilian leaders." In the words of my Critical Thinking Professor: So what? Wouldn't you expect there to be? Shouldn't there be? Isn't that why the military is under a civilian Secretary and reports to the civilian leadership of the Executive and Legislative branches? If I were President, and had a monumental decision to make, such as going to war, I would certainly hope there was a divide, and people were willing to make their opinions known.
As far as bragging about your credentials, I ask again: So what? Jimmy Carter was a State Governor and President and he's wrong about everything, including how dangerous the average cottontailed bunny is.
So, somebody wrote a book? Again: So what? Just because a book is written, we should read it and ooh and aaw over how intelligent the author is?
As far as framing your arguments? You didn't make any, you simply posted a screen and a half of name-dropping, trying to look intelligent and "connected."
Twice you said you wouldn't post again - and then did. Like Ozzy's 20th "Retirement Tour" I'll wait breathlessly for your next post...
Robert
As far as bragging about your credentials, I ask again: So what? Jimmy Carter was a State Governor and President and he's wrong about everything, including how dangerous the average cottontailed bunny is.
So, somebody wrote a book? Again: So what? Just because a book is written, we should read it and ooh and aaw over how intelligent the author is?
As far as framing your arguments? You didn't make any, you simply posted a screen and a half of name-dropping, trying to look intelligent and "connected."
Twice you said you wouldn't post again - and then did. Like Ozzy's 20th "Retirement Tour" I'll wait breathlessly for your next post...
Robert
Posted by: Robert at September 14, 2007 03:52 AM (vrDK+)
73
A big waste of time to complain about some group that advocates anti-war! This is a distraction from the terrible weeks the GOP had when Larry Craig, David Vitter, Karl Rove, ALberto Gonzales, Tony Snow, Vice President Cheney, and the president had! This something that comes from Jake Tapper and John Stossel (two right wing pundits) who make a heyday of misinforming the country about a "special discount"! When it reached Murdoch's New York Post, then the Fox News memo and then to Limbaugh, John Gibson, O'Reilly and Hannity! C'mon now I am sick of this partisan distracting cause a "2/3 of Americans" want the war to be over! Do what Ron Paul says and stay out of these other countries!
Posted by: Brian Beach at September 14, 2007 08:00 AM (WBI8e)
74
Sean Hannity calls his radio show the "stop Hillary Express" What's the value of his illegal campaign contributions at 3 hours a day/ 5 days a week?
Posted by: Frank Provasek at September 16, 2007 12:18 AM (NJ2Km)
75
I guess by now anybody who can use their brains sees that any other group who meets the same criteria as MoveOn met, can get the same rates or maybe even lower rates.
This turns out to be another far right attack based on hysteria and not facts.
This turns out to be another far right attack based on hysteria and not facts.
Posted by: WDRussell at September 16, 2007 09:12 AM (6yXNf)
That Time of the Year
Last summer or early last fall (I'm too lazy to look which at the moment), I had a week-long fundraising effort here at Confederate Yankee, where readers were kind enough to provide me with enough funds to buy a laptop to replace my aging and dying Dell 733R from which I'd been researching and writing. I was humbled and awed at your outpouring of support.
This year, I'll not be needing any new equipment, and I do't have any particular dire needs that the Lord won't take care of for me. He's granted me everything I need and most of what I want, including something else my wife and I have been wanting for a long time:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:32 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Great news! Congrats, Bob!
Posted by: marykatharine at September 10, 2007 09:48 AM (3toqq)
Posted by: 1sttofight at September 10, 2007 09:52 AM (T714S)
3
"... This year, I'll not be needing any new equipment ..."
Looks like the equipment you have is working pretty good!
Wishing you and your wife and new baby all the best!
Looks like the equipment you have is working pretty good!
Wishing you and your wife and new baby all the best!
Posted by: John Pennylegion at September 10, 2007 11:45 AM (GHyUE)
Posted by: seawitch at September 10, 2007 11:52 AM (BCDZE)
5
Congrats!
Your next ten-fifteen years are the pinnacle of the human existence in my experience and the greatest test of being a Man. Savor this time, gird yourself for the tests that are to come.
Your next ten-fifteen years are the pinnacle of the human existence in my experience and the greatest test of being a Man. Savor this time, gird yourself for the tests that are to come.
Posted by: DaveW at September 10, 2007 01:43 PM (lrfik)
6
Yup - congratulations!
Enjoy every hour of sleep you get now.
It will become a fond memory
Boy or girl?
Enjoy every hour of sleep you get now.
It will become a fond memory
Boy or girl?
Posted by: Timothy S. Carlson at September 10, 2007 02:46 PM (uBBUD)
7
congrats! I know what it is like my wife just gave birth to a little girl wed the 5th. both are healthy and at home.
Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2007 04:22 PM (siQqy)
Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 07:18 PM (viASe)
9
Congratulations!!!!! Better load up on sleep now, 'cuz you ain't gettin' any after wee one arrives.
Posted by: GradualDazzle at September 10, 2007 07:29 PM (iHegN)
10
Congratulations to you and your wife, Bob.
Posted by: Dusty at September 10, 2007 08:06 PM (1Lzs1)
11
3/23? My wife is a couple of weeks ahead of yours.
Right now we're thanking the Gods for Zofran. (Write it down! Ask for it by name!)
Right now we're thanking the Gods for Zofran. (Write it down! Ask for it by name!)
Posted by: Richard Riley at September 10, 2007 10:45 PM (LibFF)
12
Very cool. Start working on your reduced-sleep-training program now...
Posted by: mrkwong at September 10, 2007 11:20 PM (G8Eo0)
Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 11:49 PM (viASe)
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 11, 2007 09:15 PM (YcNsA)
High Noon for TNR
I'll ask all of my readers to please check out Pajamas Media after noon (Eastern U.S.) today [update: it's up now], and see what you think of my exclusive interview which should be coming online right about then.
In the meantime, Michelle Malkin and her team at Hot Air released a crushing "Vent" today, interviewing Michael Goldfarb, the writer for The Weekly Standard that broke the story with his post, "Fact or Fiction?" on July 18, and also paying a surprise visit to the offices of The New Republic to try to get in to see Franklin Foer. Watch the whole thing. All in all, this is going to be a very bad day for Franklin Foer and The New Republic, who by now, just wish this story would go away. What they don't seem to grasp is that at this point, they are the story. We know that the events Beauchamp wrote about in "Shock Troops" were fabrications, and that has become something of a non-story at this point. Now, what has become a far more important story is the devious means by which the editorial staff of The New Republic has sought to cover-up their own inadequacies. If they had simply admitted in the beginning that they did not adequately check Beauchamp's stories because they never thought that the husband of a staffer would so boldly and blatantly lie to them, then this would have blown over weeks ago, with minor consequences. Instead, The New Republic launched an investigation "re-reporting" the story, and tried to justify the unjustifiable with a combination of willful deception and obfuscation. They've attempted to deceive or hide information their readers, fellow journalists, at least one of the experts they claimed supported the veracity of the story, the blogosphere, and the United States Army, in a pathetic attempt to justify a minor incompetence, and in the process, created a significant scandal. In the end, if TNR owners CanWest Mediaworks hopes to retain any corporate credibility at all, a purge of the defective detectives that make up the editorial staff The New Republic is certainly warranted. They've run out of second chances. Update: Read all of my Beauchamp/TNR related coverage here. For those of you who have the means, please consider supporting citizen-journalism (specifically, mine). Thanks.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:52 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Or they could have used the tried and true liberal response when caught flat out lying,
HEY, WE WERE JUST KIDDING, IT WAS A JOKE.
YOU NEOCONS ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO GET IT.
Semper Fi
HEY, WE WERE JUST KIDDING, IT WAS A JOKE.
YOU NEOCONS ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO GET IT.
Semper Fi
Posted by: 1sttofight at September 10, 2007 09:46 AM (T714S)
2
I have said it before and I'll say it again, TNR doesn't need to come clean, fire people, or do any of the things they rightly should do. They know who their audience is and their audience doesn't care one bit about truth. They care about the narrative. So TNR and their audience are in scynch here. That's all that matters to them.
Posted by: T.Ferg at September 10, 2007 10:25 AM (2YVh7)
3
Bob -- Kudos to you, Michelle and Michael for staying on TNR's case. By all means keep up the good work.
However, at this point TNR has doubled-down twice in the Beauchamp affair and lost. For anyone who cares to know, it's clear TNR has once again fobbed off agenda-driven fables as insightful truths without fact-checking. Then they went on to lie about their fact-checking, their intended follow-up, and the Army's handling of Beauchamp.
At this point, what more does TNR have to lose? Why not continue to stonewall?
However, at this point TNR has doubled-down twice in the Beauchamp affair and lost. For anyone who cares to know, it's clear TNR has once again fobbed off agenda-driven fables as insightful truths without fact-checking. Then they went on to lie about their fact-checking, their intended follow-up, and the Army's handling of Beauchamp.
At this point, what more does TNR have to lose? Why not continue to stonewall?
Posted by: huxley at September 10, 2007 11:02 AM (rOvvS)
4
The really sad thing about this whole fiasco is the willingness of TNR to abandon legitimate journalism to propagandize.
What is even sadder is the fact that so many news and information journals are doing the same thing every day of the week.
What is even sadder is the fact that so many news and information journals are doing the same thing every day of the week.
Posted by: edward cropper at September 10, 2007 11:27 AM (ZxPWQ)
5
Which raises the question -- was American journalism always this bad? Is the only difference now with the internet and blogs that the media get caught like this over and over again?
Posted by: huxley at September 10, 2007 12:10 PM (Qt1f1)
6
Huxley - My best guess would be yes and no. Yes, there were always some lazy reporters who made up details when getting the real story would have been too much work. In the past, the newspaper-reading public didn't have the tools to catch them, so exactly how many reporters "phoned it in" (or telegraphed it in) over the course of history cannot be known.
And no, not all reporters were like this. Look, for instance, at the WWII reporting. There were always good reporters as well, people taking the time (like Mr. Owens did) to get all the facts and get the story right.
In the end, it boils down to human nature, which never changes. There are heroes and there are zeroes, and there have always been both.
And no, not all reporters were like this. Look, for instance, at the WWII reporting. There were always good reporters as well, people taking the time (like Mr. Owens did) to get all the facts and get the story right.
In the end, it boils down to human nature, which never changes. There are heroes and there are zeroes, and there have always been both.
Posted by: Robin Munn at September 10, 2007 12:30 PM (IWzGe)
7
Robin -- I've noticed since I was a teenager that newspaper accounts of events I experienced often got a lot of details wrong in a lazy or careless way.
But I don't remember the "news" news so propagandized as it is today, where editorializing creeps in everywhere and even fabricated evidence like Beauchamp or Rathergate or the Lancet study on Iraqi deaths are used to bolster agendas.
Perhaps I should look back and see.
But I don't remember the "news" news so propagandized as it is today, where editorializing creeps in everywhere and even fabricated evidence like Beauchamp or Rathergate or the Lancet study on Iraqi deaths are used to bolster agendas.
Perhaps I should look back and see.
Posted by: huxley at September 10, 2007 01:00 PM (Qt1f1)
8
I personally think the media has always been this way. Its just the explosion of information technology combined with the radicalization of our political discourse that makes it seem so bad now.
Congrats on the interview CY. You really hammered it home.
In the end it won't matter though. TNR is just a third tier declining rag now. They aren't going to clean this up because their audience doesn't want them to and from what I can tell they have no personal or organizational integrity pushing them to Do the Right Thing. They're just hunkering down waiting for it to go away.
Congrats on the interview CY. You really hammered it home.
In the end it won't matter though. TNR is just a third tier declining rag now. They aren't going to clean this up because their audience doesn't want them to and from what I can tell they have no personal or organizational integrity pushing them to Do the Right Thing. They're just hunkering down waiting for it to go away.
Posted by: DaveW at September 10, 2007 01:39 PM (lrfik)
9
Gentlemen, as a former managing editor of a newspaper, let me assure you that the quality of news reporting has declined measurably over the past 20 years, and most of the blame can be attributed to liberal J-schools, who are turning out agenda-driven graduates as brainwashed as students in a Pakistani madrassa. That is why you see little if any reaction within TNR, as they are convinced that they are telling the truth even when they are lying. They are nothing but brainwashed propagandists. Sickening, really.
Posted by: templar knight at September 10, 2007 04:59 PM (2LEwd)
10
Thanks for weighing in, TK! That's my sense of it too.
Back in the eighties, I was your basic San Francisco leftie. While I was often unhappy with the balance of news coverage, the editorials on the editorial page, and the accounts of what government officials said, I never had the impression that the media itself was foisting outright propaganda disguised as news.
Not that long ago, I think the staffs of most newspapers and magazines would have been deeply ashamed if they were caught pushing a story based on fabricated evidence. That's not true today. Mostly they brass it out, like Rather, Mapes and now Foer.
Back in the eighties, I was your basic San Francisco leftie. While I was often unhappy with the balance of news coverage, the editorials on the editorial page, and the accounts of what government officials said, I never had the impression that the media itself was foisting outright propaganda disguised as news.
Not that long ago, I think the staffs of most newspapers and magazines would have been deeply ashamed if they were caught pushing a story based on fabricated evidence. That's not true today. Mostly they brass it out, like Rather, Mapes and now Foer.
Posted by: huxley at September 10, 2007 06:53 PM (Qt1f1)
11
Assuming that the comments above are correct, that TNR has no reason to come clean because they are giving their subscribers exactly what they want, what leverage does Bob or anyone else have to get the truth out or to make anyone pay a price?
Posted by: Mark at September 10, 2007 06:59 PM (+45yf)
12
One wonders where the usual lefty suspects are...
Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 07:24 PM (viASe)
13
>...what leverage does Bob or anyone else have to get the truth out or to make anyone pay a price?
Exactly. I don't see it happening. I enjoy watching Michelle Malkin's ambush attempt in the TNR office and I appreciate Bob's continuing efforts to cut the ground out from underneath TNR, but these people seem shameless.
Rather, Mapes and CBS never apologized or even acknowledged using forged docs on 60 Minutes, why should TNR and Foer apologize for Beauchamp?
Exactly. I don't see it happening. I enjoy watching Michelle Malkin's ambush attempt in the TNR office and I appreciate Bob's continuing efforts to cut the ground out from underneath TNR, but these people seem shameless.
Rather, Mapes and CBS never apologized or even acknowledged using forged docs on 60 Minutes, why should TNR and Foer apologize for Beauchamp?
Posted by: huxley at September 10, 2007 07:53 PM (Qt1f1)
14
There are still a number of people in the newspaper business who were trained prior to the J-school madrassas, many in positions of authority. The recent outrage in Seattle, I believe it was, where the reporters in the newsroom applauded the resignation of Karl Rove is a case in point. The editor, who was obviously trained at another place and time, took control of the situation. One such as he is rare in the media these days, but these are the ones we appeal to for justice.
Posted by: templar knight at September 10, 2007 09:03 PM (2LEwd)
15
Mark
The price that Bob and others are forcing TNR (CBS, etc.) to pay is very high--trust in the publication. Ultimately that is death--once a majority of readers/viewers believe that the publication can no longer be trusted, fewer will read it and even fewer will risk ridicule citing it.
CBS understood that calculus very well when they dumped Dan and Mary Mapes. TNR clearly does not understand it at all.
The price that Bob and others are forcing TNR (CBS, etc.) to pay is very high--trust in the publication. Ultimately that is death--once a majority of readers/viewers believe that the publication can no longer be trusted, fewer will read it and even fewer will risk ridicule citing it.
CBS understood that calculus very well when they dumped Dan and Mary Mapes. TNR clearly does not understand it at all.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 11, 2007 10:41 AM (TzLpv)
16
Templar
Old-school journalists appear to be a dying breed. At least at the major dailies. In ten years that editor will be gone and the newsroom would cheer at an assasination attempt of their politial enemies.
I still don't really understand what is so special about a j-school degree. A college degree would be useful--general knowledge, ability to learn, and abilty to write/speak--but a good english or history degree with science distribution would accomplish that quite nicely. All the rest should be learned via mentoring, training, ojt. Wrong?
Old-school journalists appear to be a dying breed. At least at the major dailies. In ten years that editor will be gone and the newsroom would cheer at an assasination attempt of their politial enemies.
I still don't really understand what is so special about a j-school degree. A college degree would be useful--general knowledge, ability to learn, and abilty to write/speak--but a good english or history degree with science distribution would accomplish that quite nicely. All the rest should be learned via mentoring, training, ojt. Wrong?
Posted by: iconoclast at September 11, 2007 10:46 AM (TzLpv)
17
It is now obvious that the editors at TNR have now teamed up with OJ in the quest for the truth.
A truth that can be found in any mirror.
A truth that can be found in any mirror.
Posted by: Neo at September 11, 2007 01:07 PM (Yozw9)
September 07, 2007
Name That Goon
Who...
- ...claims that Democrats in Congress have failed to listen to the will of the American people to stop the Iraq War by surrendering?
- ...claims that we're sacrificing the blood of American soldiers for the greed of corporations?
- ...considers Noam Chomsky one of the West's greatest thinkers?
- ...thinks that the news media are right-wing tools, loyal to an empire-hungry dictator?
- ... still uses the worn-out "no blood for oil" argument?
- ...blames America for global warming?
- ...loathes capitalism, and thinks we are just pawns to a creeping globalism?
- Keith Olbermann
- Osama bin Laden
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
- all of the above
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:57 PM | Comments (79) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob, does it sound like OBL is a Kos Kid? Wonder which blogs he visits?
Posted by: CoRev at September 07, 2007 03:19 PM (0U8Ob)
2
Why is it a shame that I correctly identified all three as anti-American?
Heh...
He sure plays to the left in this episode. He even gives a hat tip to Rosie by citing the mythical 650,000 dead Iraqis.
Heh...
He sure plays to the left in this episode. He even gives a hat tip to Rosie by citing the mythical 650,000 dead Iraqis.
Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 03:35 PM (YGWpH)
3
Ha Ha! Osama proves, yet again, that he just doesn't understand his enemies. A terrorist supposed to provoke terror in his enemies, not mirth.
I bet that a lot of Democrats aren't laughing, however.
I bet that a lot of Democrats aren't laughing, however.
Posted by: baldilocks at September 07, 2007 04:00 PM (fffpJ)
Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at September 07, 2007 08:16 PM (dqiZq)
5
"NO NO NO!!! This video was to be released NEXT year, not this year you turbaned moron. You have to stop smoking that fine Afghan hashish once in a while...."
Karl Rove
Karl Rove
Posted by: iconoclast at September 07, 2007 10:43 PM (c9S12)
6
How stupid can you people get?
Although in reality it isn't brilliant, some of you might think so if you actually sat and thought about what Bin Laden is trying to do (or at least thinks he's doing).
He knows, of course, that whatever he proposes will be anathema to anyone serious in America.
The current "strategy" pursued by the right wing inflames anti-American sentiment the world round and steeply drives up recruiting numbers for various Islamist terrorist organizations, among which can be counted, yes, Al Qaida.
Thus, by falsely proposing one thing, he thinks he can safely count on Americans to do the other.
The longer the war in Iraq and the more Republican policies are carried out, the more terrorism. It's that simple.
Although in reality it isn't brilliant, some of you might think so if you actually sat and thought about what Bin Laden is trying to do (or at least thinks he's doing).
He knows, of course, that whatever he proposes will be anathema to anyone serious in America.
The current "strategy" pursued by the right wing inflames anti-American sentiment the world round and steeply drives up recruiting numbers for various Islamist terrorist organizations, among which can be counted, yes, Al Qaida.
Thus, by falsely proposing one thing, he thinks he can safely count on Americans to do the other.
The longer the war in Iraq and the more Republican policies are carried out, the more terrorism. It's that simple.
Posted by: David at September 08, 2007 12:14 AM (hpkMZ)
7
how diabolial, David. By supporting the party of appeasment and retreat, OBL is really saying please keep killing and capturing us so he can continue to recruit. So OBL really doesn't want the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe he really does want us to topple Assad and the mad mullahs of Iran, too!
In related news, OBL's support for radical Imans in Pakistan and related assasination attempts on Mubarak really mean that AQ wants Mubarak to remain in power so terrorist recruiting will continue to flourish.
Now if OBL could just get away from those pesky Predator drones...
In related news, OBL's support for radical Imans in Pakistan and related assasination attempts on Mubarak really mean that AQ wants Mubarak to remain in power so terrorist recruiting will continue to flourish.
Now if OBL could just get away from those pesky Predator drones...
Posted by: iconoclast at September 08, 2007 02:41 AM (kp8ov)
8
As all clear thinking people know al Qaeda and other islamonazis could care less about our foreign policy. They have one goal which they state at every opportunity. A worldwide caliphate. Intellectual nitwits like David have such a vicious hatred of our country that it blinds them to the simple truth.
David, go get your dictionary and look up the word caliphate. Maybe, just maybe you'll learn something.
David, go get your dictionary and look up the word caliphate. Maybe, just maybe you'll learn something.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 08, 2007 06:36 AM (Lgw9b)
9
I think bin Laden might have a point. If only to end the war, I'm willing to convert to Islam if you guys are.
Posted by: nunaim at September 08, 2007 09:02 AM (KmhBe)
10
Also:
It seems that the chemical found at the UN was not phosgene. Don't you think that a public apology is in order from everyone who posted something on the assumption that it was phosgene?
It seems that the chemical found at the UN was not phosgene. Don't you think that a public apology is in order from everyone who posted something on the assumption that it was phosgene?
Posted by: nunaim at September 08, 2007 09:08 AM (KmhBe)
11
David, please change your name. You are a living insult to Davids everywhere (including me).
Did Hitler go on the air and dare the Allies to keep advancing towards Berlin? Did Mussolini encourage the Allies to march through Italy? Did Hirohito tell the Allies to keep on taking islands on their way to Japan?
OBL broadcast what he did specifically to give talking points to lefties without the will or capability to consider what is happening rationally.
He is doing this because we are winning. We have Al Qaeda in Iraq on the run, denying them safe havens in some instances mere hours after they set up shop. OBL himself doesn't dare come out into the open for more than a few minutes at a time for fear that a Predator will spot him and a cruise missile will be on its way to his latest cave within minutes. His attempted terror attacks are being thwarted long before they ever come to fruition... in fact, it's been some time since a successful attack occurred outside the Middle East.
If (and I postulate this only for sake of discussion, not because I am accepting it is true) we are helping him recruit, he's clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel with the new recruits he is getting, to judge from their effectiveness. But what do you expect when his forces consider blowing themselves up to be a measure of success? Not a lot of chance to pass along wisdom to the next recruit there, ya know?
Also, there is the point that if (and, again, I am postulating this only for the sake of discussion, not because I believe it) the war helps his recruiting, what the blazes do you think our retreating would do to his recruiting? He could claim, with some justification, that he had chased both superpowers away--the Soviets from Afghanistan and America from Iraq. Since people naturally want to be on the winning side, many more would flock to his banner.
Yes, David, please change your name. Harry, as in Harry Reid; or Al, as in Al Gore are good names. But please, don't sully the honorable name of David anymore.
Did Hitler go on the air and dare the Allies to keep advancing towards Berlin? Did Mussolini encourage the Allies to march through Italy? Did Hirohito tell the Allies to keep on taking islands on their way to Japan?
OBL broadcast what he did specifically to give talking points to lefties without the will or capability to consider what is happening rationally.
He is doing this because we are winning. We have Al Qaeda in Iraq on the run, denying them safe havens in some instances mere hours after they set up shop. OBL himself doesn't dare come out into the open for more than a few minutes at a time for fear that a Predator will spot him and a cruise missile will be on its way to his latest cave within minutes. His attempted terror attacks are being thwarted long before they ever come to fruition... in fact, it's been some time since a successful attack occurred outside the Middle East.
If (and I postulate this only for sake of discussion, not because I am accepting it is true) we are helping him recruit, he's clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel with the new recruits he is getting, to judge from their effectiveness. But what do you expect when his forces consider blowing themselves up to be a measure of success? Not a lot of chance to pass along wisdom to the next recruit there, ya know?
Also, there is the point that if (and, again, I am postulating this only for the sake of discussion, not because I believe it) the war helps his recruiting, what the blazes do you think our retreating would do to his recruiting? He could claim, with some justification, that he had chased both superpowers away--the Soviets from Afghanistan and America from Iraq. Since people naturally want to be on the winning side, many more would flock to his banner.
Yes, David, please change your name. Harry, as in Harry Reid; or Al, as in Al Gore are good names. But please, don't sully the honorable name of David anymore.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 09:48 AM (viASe)
12
Sounds like a Kos Kid, but that Osama doesn't blame Boosh so much for 9-11, but rather wants credit for it himself.
Kind of interesting that OBL has one more fact correct than the Kos Kidlets.
Kind of interesting that OBL has one more fact correct than the Kos Kidlets.
Posted by: Don Meaker at September 08, 2007 10:17 AM (RXNGp)
13
Did Hitler go on the air and dare the Allies to keep advancing towards Berlin? Did Mussolini encourage the Allies to march through Italy? Did Hirohito tell the Allies to keep on taking islands on their way to Japan?
Did Bush tell the terrorists to "bring it on?"
Oh, wait; he did. And they done brung it.
Did Hitler go on the air and dare the Allies to keep advancing towards Berlin? Did Mussolini encourage the Allies to march through Italy? Did Hirohito tell the Allies to keep on taking islands on their way to Japan?
Did Bush tell the terrorists to "bring it on?"
Oh, wait; he did. And they done brung it.
Posted by: nunaim at September 08, 2007 10:46 AM (KmhBe)
14
So you guys are now using Osama Bin Laden to make your political arguments. Classy.
Posted by: Voice of Reason at September 08, 2007 10:56 AM (K1Emm)
15
Nunaim, was Bush's comment prior to or subsequent to the 9/11 attacks? Or do you even know?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 10:59 AM (viASe)
16
omg, I thought David was being funny. David, please don't tell me that you are that dumb! How do you walk and breathe at the same time.
Do I infer from that misunderstanding that numaim's offer for complete surrender was not a joke either?
Do I infer from that misunderstanding that numaim's offer for complete surrender was not a joke either?
Posted by: iconoclast at September 08, 2007 11:41 AM (Duiq8)
17
Having the dubious pleasure of debating nunaim in the past, I'd say that he/she/it would be willing to do anything to avoid armed conflict, including praying five times a day facing Mecca.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 11:43 AM (viASe)
18
Nunaim, was Bush's comment prior to or subsequent to the 9/11 attacks?
Doesn't matter in any way.
Having the dubious pleasure of debating nunaim in the past, I'd say that he/she/it would be willing to do anything to avoid armed conflict, including praying five times a day facing Mecca.
For "debating" insert "being pwned by." Also: you reveal yet again that you can't be bothered to actually read the posts in any given thread where you deign to comment. Break a sweat, will you, and keep up with what people have written, all right?
Nunaim, was Bush's comment prior to or subsequent to the 9/11 attacks?
Doesn't matter in any way.
Having the dubious pleasure of debating nunaim in the past, I'd say that he/she/it would be willing to do anything to avoid armed conflict, including praying five times a day facing Mecca.
For "debating" insert "being pwned by." Also: you reveal yet again that you can't be bothered to actually read the posts in any given thread where you deign to comment. Break a sweat, will you, and keep up with what people have written, all right?
Posted by: nunaim at September 08, 2007 11:58 AM (KmhBe)
19
I think that whole video was scripted by Adam Gadahn, that Californian turned Muslim Jihadist that has made videos in the past, like the one released last year at this time. The words are that of a former Lefty American; when was the real ObL a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist?
Posted by: Tom T B at September 08, 2007 12:43 PM (M7kiy)
20
Nunaim, did you or did you not say that you were willing to convert to Islam to end the war?
And Bush said "Bring it on" after and only after the Islamoterrorists had already hit us.
Or do you believe that somehow BushCheneyHalliburtonHitler had something to do with 9/11?
And Bush said "Bring it on" after and only after the Islamoterrorists had already hit us.
Or do you believe that somehow BushCheneyHalliburtonHitler had something to do with 9/11?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 12:59 PM (viASe)
21
maybe nunaim thinks that Bush made them 'really mad' by telling AQ to bring it on. Otherwise, AQ would not have fought so hard in Iraq and around the world.
It is not often I get to use the word puerile, but it certainly applies to nunaim's comments in this thread.
It is not often I get to use the word puerile, but it certainly applies to nunaim's comments in this thread.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 08, 2007 01:05 PM (Qaboy)
22
Please, please, please change your name. This is so embarrassing.
Posted by: david e at September 08, 2007 01:39 PM (yMOvg)
23
Nunaim, did you or did you not say that you were willing to convert to Islam to end the war?
Whatever it takes to end the madness.
And Bush said "Bring it on" after and only after the Islamoterrorists had already hit us.
But before thousands of our troops died in the GWOT, right? I'm certainly not saying that these guys died because he said that, but it was an astoundingly idiotic thing to say, and one that can only look even more idiotic in hindsight.
Nunaim, did you or did you not say that you were willing to convert to Islam to end the war?
Whatever it takes to end the madness.
And Bush said "Bring it on" after and only after the Islamoterrorists had already hit us.
But before thousands of our troops died in the GWOT, right? I'm certainly not saying that these guys died because he said that, but it was an astoundingly idiotic thing to say, and one that can only look even more idiotic in hindsight.
Posted by: nunaim at September 08, 2007 02:06 PM (KmhBe)
24
Nunaim, it was after thousands of our innocent civilians had already died at the hands of these people.
And if you're not saying that it caused loss of life, what the devil is your point? Are you just disagreeing to be disagreeable? Or are you trying to make the very point you're claiming that you're not trying to make?
And if you're not saying that it caused loss of life, what the devil is your point? Are you just disagreeing to be disagreeable? Or are you trying to make the very point you're claiming that you're not trying to make?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 02:29 PM (viASe)
25
ok, I get it. nunaim isn't even a follower of Gandhi's satyagraha version of non-violence. In that version, adherents willingly face violence and death rather than change their righteous position. Even Gandhi thought that it was better to fight for the right thing than to hide behind satyagraha, if someone only adopted satyagraha because they were cowardly.
Rather, nunaim is just simply a poltroon--someone who will give up anything and everything just to avoid violence. A person without any concept of honor, duty, sacrifice. A person who would condemn their countrymen to slavery, tyranny, torture, and death because of their cowardice and fear.
Nice! There have been many tyrants who just LOVE people like you over the past few thousand years.
So nunaim, go ahead and convert to Islam. We still live in a free country where you can convert to any silly-ass religion you choose, unlike the kind of countries where Islam is dominant. And maybe someday when you are next pressured into being an accessory to an act of war against this country (once a coward, always a coward), I will get the pure joy of either seeing you tried and punished or just simply punished.
Rather, nunaim is just simply a poltroon--someone who will give up anything and everything just to avoid violence. A person without any concept of honor, duty, sacrifice. A person who would condemn their countrymen to slavery, tyranny, torture, and death because of their cowardice and fear.
Nice! There have been many tyrants who just LOVE people like you over the past few thousand years.
So nunaim, go ahead and convert to Islam. We still live in a free country where you can convert to any silly-ass religion you choose, unlike the kind of countries where Islam is dominant. And maybe someday when you are next pressured into being an accessory to an act of war against this country (once a coward, always a coward), I will get the pure joy of either seeing you tried and punished or just simply punished.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 08, 2007 02:52 PM (Qaboy)
26
C-C-G,
Nunaim's point was that Bush said "bring it on" when he meant the opposite, so UBL could be saying the opposite that he means as well.
But that is convoluted thinking (presumably typical for him). Bush (at the time) meant what he said because he presumed that the Iraqis and US Marines would easily murder al-Qaedalings. He did not bank on the wide support of al-Qaeda and the scum insurgency among the Sunni Arabs.
Bush meant what he said. The Democrat leadership, the Kos Kids, and UBL also meant what they have said...they want America to lose.
Nunaim's point was that Bush said "bring it on" when he meant the opposite, so UBL could be saying the opposite that he means as well.
But that is convoluted thinking (presumably typical for him). Bush (at the time) meant what he said because he presumed that the Iraqis and US Marines would easily murder al-Qaedalings. He did not bank on the wide support of al-Qaeda and the scum insurgency among the Sunni Arabs.
Bush meant what he said. The Democrat leadership, the Kos Kids, and UBL also meant what they have said...they want America to lose.
Posted by: CMAR II at September 08, 2007 03:02 PM (tPEaC)
27
If my wholehearted conversion to another religion will save lives, it's the very least I can do. I encourage you to follow my example--"encourage" in the original meaning of the word: I want to give you the courage to make this sacrifice if it is an act that will protect us from bin Laden. He says that he won't attack us again if we convert.
Posted by: nunaim at September 08, 2007 03:04 PM (KmhBe)
28
Is the hole really that deep? Yikes. Say hi to the rabbit for me.
Posted by: David at September 08, 2007 03:11 PM (hpkMZ)
29
absolutely unbelievable, nunaim.
And after you convert, while I most emphatically will not, and Islamic fanatics still target everyone with violence because I and others will not join this cult, what will you do next? Help them to find us and convert us? And if we still refuse to convert? Will you help them to hold us down while we are beheaded?
Is nothing in your universe inviolable? Are you that frightened to die?
And after you convert, while I most emphatically will not, and Islamic fanatics still target everyone with violence because I and others will not join this cult, what will you do next? Help them to find us and convert us? And if we still refuse to convert? Will you help them to hold us down while we are beheaded?
Is nothing in your universe inviolable? Are you that frightened to die?
Posted by: iconoclast at September 08, 2007 03:20 PM (Qaboy)
30
If my wholehearted conversion to another religion will save lives, it's the very least I can do. I encourage you to follow my example--"encourage" in the original meaning of the word: I want to give you the courage to make this sacrifice if it is an act that will protect us from bin Laden. He says that he won't attack us again if we convert.
Posted by nunaim at September 8, 2007 03:04 PM
nunaim, call your doctor, not enough blood is making it to your brain.
If you convert to the form of Islam that Bin Laden practices, you will be at the Taliban/Iranian level of sharia. Under this level, many people have been killed for violating their laws. Men, women, and children.
These people weren't killed because they were Americans. They weren't killed because they were implementing American foreign policy. They weren't killed because they were westerners. They weren't killed because they were Christians.
Bin Laden and his followers will kill even their own people if it suits their pursuit of power and control. This is well documented and occurs and has occurred with absolutely no American involvement.
Really, make an appointment.
Posted by nunaim at September 8, 2007 03:04 PM
nunaim, call your doctor, not enough blood is making it to your brain.
If you convert to the form of Islam that Bin Laden practices, you will be at the Taliban/Iranian level of sharia. Under this level, many people have been killed for violating their laws. Men, women, and children.
These people weren't killed because they were Americans. They weren't killed because they were implementing American foreign policy. They weren't killed because they were westerners. They weren't killed because they were Christians.
Bin Laden and his followers will kill even their own people if it suits their pursuit of power and control. This is well documented and occurs and has occurred with absolutely no American involvement.
Really, make an appointment.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at September 08, 2007 03:36 PM (EsOdX)
31
nunaim
If OBL and others next demanded we send our Jewish countrymen to their camps, would you "en-courage" us to make that sacrifice too?
If OBL and others next demanded we send our Jewish countrymen to their camps, would you "en-courage" us to make that sacrifice too?
Posted by: iconoclast at September 08, 2007 03:43 PM (Qaboy)
32
If my wholehearted conversion to another religion will save lives, it's the very least I can do.
I wish I could believe you aren't serious. However, after reading your comments on CY the last couple of weeks, I have to take you at your word. You are truly unhinged and mentally unstable.
But, no one is keeping you from converting. Suggest you make a pilgrimmage to Wizirhistan and attend an al Qaeda training camp. Then return to the United States to spread the word. You can only be a true convert if you embrace jihad.
All that will give the FBI a reason to keep an eye on you. And you desperately need someone to keep an eye on you. Before you hurt yourself or someone else.
I wish I could believe you aren't serious. However, after reading your comments on CY the last couple of weeks, I have to take you at your word. You are truly unhinged and mentally unstable.
But, no one is keeping you from converting. Suggest you make a pilgrimmage to Wizirhistan and attend an al Qaeda training camp. Then return to the United States to spread the word. You can only be a true convert if you embrace jihad.
All that will give the FBI a reason to keep an eye on you. And you desperately need someone to keep an eye on you. Before you hurt yourself or someone else.
Posted by: John in CA at September 08, 2007 04:11 PM (PQVEt)
33
Sheesh, I run to the store for fixin's for dinner (beef and pork... Hindus and Muslims beware), and you guys have all the fun with nunaim the cat toy without me.
-just kidding-
-just kidding-
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 04:17 PM (viASe)
34
Let's see, David (and shame on you for bringing disgrace to a great name):
How many of those "Republican policies" that you blame for terrorism were in place in 11/4/79?
How many in 10/23/83?
How many in 6/25/96?
How about 11/7/85?
How about 10/12/00?
Do you even KNOW what happened on 2/26/93?
And, of course, 9/11/01?
Historical illiteracy: the hallmark of the (anti)American Left.
Nunaim is absolutely right, though. If we had converted to National Socialism in '39, think of how many young Americans wouldn't have had to die fighting for nations that could never know democracy and who never could create honest, strong governments.
And if we had followed his well-meaning advice and gone Communist in '46, just think of how many wars we wouldn't have to have fought!
Of course, as an unintended benefit, we would've had the pleasure of seeing 'mental defectives' like nunaim rounded up and sent "somewhere safe"... but I'm sure nunaim woudn't object to that necessary Revolutionary sacrifice.
How many of those "Republican policies" that you blame for terrorism were in place in 11/4/79?
How many in 10/23/83?
How many in 6/25/96?
How about 11/7/85?
How about 10/12/00?
Do you even KNOW what happened on 2/26/93?
And, of course, 9/11/01?
Historical illiteracy: the hallmark of the (anti)American Left.
Nunaim is absolutely right, though. If we had converted to National Socialism in '39, think of how many young Americans wouldn't have had to die fighting for nations that could never know democracy and who never could create honest, strong governments.
And if we had followed his well-meaning advice and gone Communist in '46, just think of how many wars we wouldn't have to have fought!
Of course, as an unintended benefit, we would've had the pleasure of seeing 'mental defectives' like nunaim rounded up and sent "somewhere safe"... but I'm sure nunaim woudn't object to that necessary Revolutionary sacrifice.
Posted by: DaveP. at September 08, 2007 04:59 PM (TUDaQ)
35
I think we should stop picking on nunaim. She is clearly someone whose emotions/compassion far outweigh her cognitive processes. The emotions are laudable, but the dissonance with reality probably causes her a great deal of pain. But because she cannot deal with the obvious conclusions of her emotional opinions, our hammering on her probably is even more painful than we realize. It is, to agree with CCG, too much like the casual cruelty of a cat playing with a mouse.
nunaim, I apologize for being quite so harsh with you. I do not wish to see you punished. But you really should get some help before you do something harmful in the real world.
I think we should stop picking on nunaim. She is clearly someone whose emotions/compassion far outweigh her cognitive processes. The emotions are laudable, but the dissonance with reality probably causes her a great deal of pain. But because she cannot deal with the obvious conclusions of her emotional opinions, our hammering on her probably is even more painful than we realize. It is, to agree with CCG, too much like the casual cruelty of a cat playing with a mouse.
nunaim, I apologize for being quite so harsh with you. I do not wish to see you punished. But you really should get some help before you do something harmful in the real world.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 08, 2007 05:20 PM (Qaboy)
36
Iconoclast, I must respectfully disagree.
For someone with nunaim's obvious political leanings to come to a conservative blog is one thing.
For them to comment once or perhaps even twice is another thing.
But for them to not only comment repeatedly but claim to be "pwning" the debates is something else entirely.
In short, they are asking for it, in spades. And I feel no guilt about giving it to them. Nunaim can stop the pain at any time, by leaving.
For someone with nunaim's obvious political leanings to come to a conservative blog is one thing.
For them to comment once or perhaps even twice is another thing.
But for them to not only comment repeatedly but claim to be "pwning" the debates is something else entirely.
In short, they are asking for it, in spades. And I feel no guilt about giving it to them. Nunaim can stop the pain at any time, by leaving.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 05:33 PM (viASe)
37
CCG
ok, but I am done with her. Not only is it too much like shooting sitting ducks, but I feel a little dirty afterward too. Kind of like I was beating up a smaller kid or a cripple. Yuckkk.
pwning through total loss--interesting approach,
CCG
ok, but I am done with her. Not only is it too much like shooting sitting ducks, but I feel a little dirty afterward too. Kind of like I was beating up a smaller kid or a cripple. Yuckkk.
pwning through total loss--interesting approach,
Posted by: iconoclast at September 08, 2007 06:59 PM (k3DL3)
38
I think I'm going to get a prayer rug...just in case the democrats take him up on his offer.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 08, 2007 07:13 PM (mrNpK)
39
And if we had followed his well-meaning advice and gone Communist in '46, just think of how many wars we wouldn't have to have fought!
Yes! Just think! And on top of it all, we would each give according to our ability and receive according to our needs. Boy, that would suck!
And if we had followed his well-meaning advice and gone Communist in '46, just think of how many wars we wouldn't have to have fought!
Yes! Just think! And on top of it all, we would each give according to our ability and receive according to our needs. Boy, that would suck!
Posted by: nunaim at September 08, 2007 07:39 PM (KmhBe)
40
So, nunaim, can we take up a collection to get you a one-way ticket to that Communist haven, China (and no, I don't mean Hong Kong)?
Or perhaps you'd prefer living with the Dear Leader in North Korea?
Or, perhaps you'd rather stay here and leave the joys of Communism for "others," you know, the "little people."
Or perhaps you'd prefer living with the Dear Leader in North Korea?
Or, perhaps you'd rather stay here and leave the joys of Communism for "others," you know, the "little people."
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 08:30 PM (viASe)
41
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is far worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has NO CHANCE of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
nunaim... seriously, you've been "pwned" several times over already. remember that the next time you come to comment here.
nunaim... seriously, you've been "pwned" several times over already. remember that the next time you come to comment here.
Posted by: K-Det at September 09, 2007 12:58 AM (zCQz8)
42
the quote was John Stuart Mill btw.
Posted by: K-Det at September 09, 2007 01:00 AM (zCQz8)
43
Ask the Jews of Khaybar and Yathrib about the solicitousness of Islam for the Jews; no wait
there are none; Yathrib is what we used to call Medina
there are none; Yathrib is what we used to call Medina
Posted by: narciso at September 09, 2007 09:12 AM (DMnkh)
44
K-Det, if you're ever in the northwestern USA, I'd be honored to shake your hand for bringing up that quote.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 09, 2007 10:19 AM (viASe)
45
I havent been around as long as you guys but I think nunaim is pulling your collective leg.
Posted by: Jason at September 09, 2007 01:33 PM (yIEot)
46
Well, here's what blows my mind: whenever I've said something eminently reasonable, either as nunaim or as my retired username--for example, "I've never seen an episode of Olbermann" or "I've actually never read a Kos thread" or even "the only Michael Moore film I've ever seen was Roger and Me, and that was twenty-some years ago"--I get accused of lying.
Of lying.
About watching Olbermann.
On the other hand, if I make up something nutty, like "I'm going to convert to Islam because bin Laden told me to," you guys lap it up like a bowl full of cream.
It is indeed something to ponder.
Of lying.
About watching Olbermann.
On the other hand, if I make up something nutty, like "I'm going to convert to Islam because bin Laden told me to," you guys lap it up like a bowl full of cream.
It is indeed something to ponder.
Posted by: nunaim at September 09, 2007 04:31 PM (Gy0VK)
47
either as nunaim or as my retired username
Oh, you admit to sock-puppeting?
So long, nunaim, It's been fun, but not in the way you might think.
Oh, you admit to sock-puppeting?
So long, nunaim, It's been fun, but not in the way you might think.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 09, 2007 04:44 PM (viASe)
48
Oh, you admit to sock-puppeting?
I reckon it's not sock-puppeting if I stopped using the other name a long while back.
Oh, you admit to sock-puppeting?
I reckon it's not sock-puppeting if I stopped using the other name a long while back.
Posted by: nunaim at September 09, 2007 04:50 PM (Gy0VK)
49
That's up to CY, now, isn't it?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 09, 2007 04:59 PM (viASe)
50
CCG, I really hurt your feelings with my revelation, didn't I? The idea that I'd convert to Islam must have seemed made to order for your brand of ranting. Your shrill response carries with it the stink of, "Geez, I look like a fool, and now I need to lash out at someone to take attention away from myself."
CY can probably tell from ISP records who I am, how long I've been coming here, and what my old handle used to be. If he bans me, then that's what he does. I'd rather he didn't, since there are a couple of reasonable folks here who are worth interacting with, but I'm guessing I'd survive.
CY can probably tell from ISP records who I am, how long I've been coming here, and what my old handle used to be. If he bans me, then that's what he does. I'd rather he didn't, since there are a couple of reasonable folks here who are worth interacting with, but I'm guessing I'd survive.
Posted by: nunaim at September 09, 2007 05:25 PM (Gy0VK)
51
nunaim, if you think that anything that happens here affects my emotions at all--with the possible exception of my sense of humor--you're not even one tenth as bright as you think you are.
And it's not "ISP records." That's anti-Patriot-Act talk. What CY can see are your IP address records. ISP = Internet Service Provider, like AOL. IP = Internet Protocol, which includes the numeric address every computer online gets, among lots of other things.
Don't try to use terms if you don't know what you mean. You make yourself look even more ill-informed, and you certainly need no assistance in that area.
And it's not "ISP records." That's anti-Patriot-Act talk. What CY can see are your IP address records. ISP = Internet Service Provider, like AOL. IP = Internet Protocol, which includes the numeric address every computer online gets, among lots of other things.
Don't try to use terms if you don't know what you mean. You make yourself look even more ill-informed, and you certainly need no assistance in that area.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 09, 2007 06:03 PM (viASe)
52
And it's not "ISP records." That's anti-Patriot-Act talk. What CY can see are your IP address records.
Whatever. I stand corrected. You clearly got my point, though.
And it's not "ISP records." That's anti-Patriot-Act talk. What CY can see are your IP address records.
Whatever. I stand corrected. You clearly got my point, though.
Posted by: nunaim at September 09, 2007 07:23 PM (Gy0VK)
53
Also: thanks for the assist. I'll try to get it right next time it comes up.
Posted by: nunaim at September 09, 2007 07:32 PM (Gy0VK)
54
"So OBL really doesn't want the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe he really does want us to topple Assad and the mad mullahs of Iran, too!"
No, of course he bleeding doesn't.
What, did you think that the 911 attacks were supposed to make the US back away saying "Don't hurt us again mr Bin Laden"? Honestly?
I don't assign evil genius status to the man but he isn't a complete idiot. Of course he knew that the US would go after AFghanistan. I imagine that he hoped that Afghanistan would chew up the US army like it chewed up the Russians and the Brits before them. Unfortunately for him the US fought a brilliant war in Afghanistan, barely touching the country except through proxies and by some good old fashioned support for the bastards we liked over the ones we didn't.
Then the US went and invaded Iraq and he must have thought all his dreams came true.
As of now he wins either way you see, if you quit Iraq then he gets to crow about defeating the invaders (when what really happened was that the native insurgency defeated the invaders), if you stay he gets to play the great warrior and get more idiot recruits.
Get this, and log it somewhere. Bin Laden doesn't have an army, he doesn't have nukes, he doesn't have a navy, air force or even much in the way of committed followers. What he has are some poorly training but dedicated special ops forces, a PR strategy and a brand. When you hear him speak you are listening to a speech written to provoke reactions that he hopes will work to achieve his goals.
So, if OBL releases a tape that mirrors Daily Kos talking points (Though I never once saw anyone on Daily Kos suggest that democracy was a bad thing) then before reacting ask youself "How would I be expected to react to this?" and "Why would that help OBL?)
Remember that OBL considers Americans to be largely intellectually lazy, ignorant boors, so he probably assume that you'll react to this by, on the left, ignoring it and on the right saying "Look, OBL is on the side of the lefties! I told you they were traitors!". Now, why would he want to provoke this reaction? Because his goals are best served by a polarised and mutually antagonistic US populace who react according to their own brand loyalties rather than acting in their national best interest.
Just try that one thing, ask "What does OBL think that he is achieving by saying this?"
No, of course he bleeding doesn't.
What, did you think that the 911 attacks were supposed to make the US back away saying "Don't hurt us again mr Bin Laden"? Honestly?
I don't assign evil genius status to the man but he isn't a complete idiot. Of course he knew that the US would go after AFghanistan. I imagine that he hoped that Afghanistan would chew up the US army like it chewed up the Russians and the Brits before them. Unfortunately for him the US fought a brilliant war in Afghanistan, barely touching the country except through proxies and by some good old fashioned support for the bastards we liked over the ones we didn't.
Then the US went and invaded Iraq and he must have thought all his dreams came true.
As of now he wins either way you see, if you quit Iraq then he gets to crow about defeating the invaders (when what really happened was that the native insurgency defeated the invaders), if you stay he gets to play the great warrior and get more idiot recruits.
Get this, and log it somewhere. Bin Laden doesn't have an army, he doesn't have nukes, he doesn't have a navy, air force or even much in the way of committed followers. What he has are some poorly training but dedicated special ops forces, a PR strategy and a brand. When you hear him speak you are listening to a speech written to provoke reactions that he hopes will work to achieve his goals.
So, if OBL releases a tape that mirrors Daily Kos talking points (Though I never once saw anyone on Daily Kos suggest that democracy was a bad thing) then before reacting ask youself "How would I be expected to react to this?" and "Why would that help OBL?)
Remember that OBL considers Americans to be largely intellectually lazy, ignorant boors, so he probably assume that you'll react to this by, on the left, ignoring it and on the right saying "Look, OBL is on the side of the lefties! I told you they were traitors!". Now, why would he want to provoke this reaction? Because his goals are best served by a polarised and mutually antagonistic US populace who react according to their own brand loyalties rather than acting in their national best interest.
Just try that one thing, ask "What does OBL think that he is achieving by saying this?"
Posted by: Rafar at September 10, 2007 04:13 AM (YJYx/)
55
Oh yeah forgot to comment on this:
"What does OBL think that he is achieving by saying this?"
What he wants. He wants to divide the nation into squabbling instead of unifying to defeat him and his forces. I just find it interesting which side he chooses to parrot.
Also, don't call Al Qaeda and those types "stupid." They are far from it. Uneducated losers? Sure but they are not stupid. Applying stupidity to your enemies is usually your last mistake.
"What does OBL think that he is achieving by saying this?"
What he wants. He wants to divide the nation into squabbling instead of unifying to defeat him and his forces. I just find it interesting which side he chooses to parrot.
Also, don't call Al Qaeda and those types "stupid." They are far from it. Uneducated losers? Sure but they are not stupid. Applying stupidity to your enemies is usually your last mistake.
Posted by: Jason at September 10, 2007 08:34 AM (B9+zH)
56
Rafar, I would challenge you on one point: prove, please, that Iraq is being used as a successful recruiting tool. Note, not that OBL is trying to use it as one, but that it is succeeding, gathering more recruits to his cause. I don't believe you can do it, any more than any of the innumerable lefties who have claimed that can prove it.
Let us look at what is currently happening in Iraq: the tribes, both Sunni and Shia, are arming themselves against al Qaeda, as a response to their massive and, quite honestly, stupid brutality towards the people they should be trying to enlist. As for foreign fighters coming in to Iraq, the lack of safe havens, thanks to General Petraeus, is making that harder and harder. If the new foreign recruits have no place to live and build their bombs, they're useless, and Petraeus is doing a very good job of denying them that.
Finally, even if your assertion was provable and correct (and I throw this in just for the sake of the argument, and not because I believe it), look at the sorts of recruits he is getting. Bunglers. The Glasgow Airport, Fort Dix, and the latest foiled German plot bear witness to the fact that these new recruits are about as good at planning as Elmer Fudd. If these are the kind of new recruits the Iraq war is driving to al Qaeda, I say let him have them. Those types of recruits help us far more than they do him.
Let us look at what is currently happening in Iraq: the tribes, both Sunni and Shia, are arming themselves against al Qaeda, as a response to their massive and, quite honestly, stupid brutality towards the people they should be trying to enlist. As for foreign fighters coming in to Iraq, the lack of safe havens, thanks to General Petraeus, is making that harder and harder. If the new foreign recruits have no place to live and build their bombs, they're useless, and Petraeus is doing a very good job of denying them that.
Finally, even if your assertion was provable and correct (and I throw this in just for the sake of the argument, and not because I believe it), look at the sorts of recruits he is getting. Bunglers. The Glasgow Airport, Fort Dix, and the latest foiled German plot bear witness to the fact that these new recruits are about as good at planning as Elmer Fudd. If these are the kind of new recruits the Iraq war is driving to al Qaeda, I say let him have them. Those types of recruits help us far more than they do him.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 09:17 AM (viASe)
57
"I just find it interesting which side he chooses to parrot."
Why, do you think it would make more sense if he were to parrot lines like "We should double gitmo" or "We should bomb Iran"? In fact, this can be easily turned around. If you assume that OBL is smart enough to know that anything he supports is instantly made less popular in the US (Which is pretty much the case) then his 2004 endorsement of Kerry has to be taken as meaning that he actually wanted Bush to win, which would imply that the side he parrots is the one that he is more concerned with diminishing.
To put it more simply, if OBL supports something in a public statement you can be sure that he wants that something to be less popular in the US.
Now, why would OBL want antiwar leftists less popular in the US?
"Also, don't call Al Qaeda and those types "stupid.""
Erm. I didn't;
"I don't assign evil genius status to the man but he isn't a complete idiot."
The implication being that he was a man of normal intelligence, and only someone of significantly lower than average intelligence would take anything he says at face value.
"I just find it interesting which side he chooses to parrot."
Why, do you think it would make more sense if he were to parrot lines like "We should double gitmo" or "We should bomb Iran"? In fact, this can be easily turned around. If you assume that OBL is smart enough to know that anything he supports is instantly made less popular in the US (Which is pretty much the case) then his 2004 endorsement of Kerry has to be taken as meaning that he actually wanted Bush to win, which would imply that the side he parrots is the one that he is more concerned with diminishing.
To put it more simply, if OBL supports something in a public statement you can be sure that he wants that something to be less popular in the US.
Now, why would OBL want antiwar leftists less popular in the US?
"Also, don't call Al Qaeda and those types "stupid.""
Erm. I didn't;
"I don't assign evil genius status to the man but he isn't a complete idiot."
The implication being that he was a man of normal intelligence, and only someone of significantly lower than average intelligence would take anything he says at face value.
Posted by: Rafar at September 10, 2007 09:22 AM (YJYx/)
58
"Note, not that OBL is trying to use it as one, but that it is succeeding, gathering more recruits to his cause. "
Everytime you get "Christian oppressors slaughtering Muslims" or the "Nations of the West commiting atrocities" it is a recruiting tool.
As to whether he is succeeding, I have no idea, obviously, not having access to the Al-Q membership roster. Still, you could look at the 2007 NIE. I assume that they have access to some data...
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf
"Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida
will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its
most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack
the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to
energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and
indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."
But I generally consider intelligence estimates to be pretty worthless so I wouldn't be offended if you do too.
"I don't believe you can do it, any more than any of the innumerable lefties who have claimed that can prove it."
Hey, I'm just parroting your intel services, ask them why they came to their conclusions.
"Note, not that OBL is trying to use it as one, but that it is succeeding, gathering more recruits to his cause."
And as for this, I think that OBL is pursuing a pointless and failed strategy. Yes, he has managed to give the US enough rope to get involved in a really stupid war in Iraq, yes he has successfully made Americans feel what it might be like to be bombed, but generally his strategy is very short on the long term. What has succeeded has only done so because some people in the US were itching for an excuse to make the stupid steps that they did.
This is of course the funny thing about real Islamic hardliners (particularly the Wahhabis) whenever they actually try to get their movement going it falls apart because it is based on complete crap. Look at the history of OBLs predecessors, failed clowns to a man.
Everytime you get "Christian oppressors slaughtering Muslims" or the "Nations of the West commiting atrocities" it is a recruiting tool.
As to whether he is succeeding, I have no idea, obviously, not having access to the Al-Q membership roster. Still, you could look at the 2007 NIE. I assume that they have access to some data...
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf
"Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida
will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its
most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack
the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to
energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and
indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."
But I generally consider intelligence estimates to be pretty worthless so I wouldn't be offended if you do too.
"I don't believe you can do it, any more than any of the innumerable lefties who have claimed that can prove it."
Hey, I'm just parroting your intel services, ask them why they came to their conclusions.
"Note, not that OBL is trying to use it as one, but that it is succeeding, gathering more recruits to his cause."
And as for this, I think that OBL is pursuing a pointless and failed strategy. Yes, he has managed to give the US enough rope to get involved in a really stupid war in Iraq, yes he has successfully made Americans feel what it might be like to be bombed, but generally his strategy is very short on the long term. What has succeeded has only done so because some people in the US were itching for an excuse to make the stupid steps that they did.
This is of course the funny thing about real Islamic hardliners (particularly the Wahhabis) whenever they actually try to get their movement going it falls apart because it is based on complete crap. Look at the history of OBLs predecessors, failed clowns to a man.
Posted by: Rafar at September 10, 2007 09:37 AM (YJYx/)
59
If you assume that OBL is smart enough to know that anything he supports is instantly made less popular in the US (Which is pretty much the case) then his 2004 endorsement of Kerry has to be taken as meaning that he actually wanted Bush to win, which would imply that the side he parrots is the one that he is more concerned with diminishing.
What makes OBL think that we do the exact opposite of what he says? Do you think that if Kerry would have been elected OBL would have been mollified into complacency? Please.
If you assume that OBL is smart enough to know that anything he supports is instantly made less popular in the US (Which is pretty much the case) then his 2004 endorsement of Kerry has to be taken as meaning that he actually wanted Bush to win, which would imply that the side he parrots is the one that he is more concerned with diminishing.
What makes OBL think that we do the exact opposite of what he says? Do you think that if Kerry would have been elected OBL would have been mollified into complacency? Please.
If you assume that OBL is smart enough to know that anything he supports is instantly made less popular in the US (Which is pretty much the case) then his 2004 endorsement of Kerry has to be taken as meaning that he actually wanted Bush to win, which would imply that the side he parrots is the one that he is more concerned with diminishing.
Posted by: Jason at September 10, 2007 10:27 AM (B9+zH)
60
Sorry I accidently hit "Post."
O rly?
he gets to play the great warrior and get more idiot recruits.
The implication being that he was a man of normal intelligence, and only someone of significantly lower than average intelligence would take anything he says at face value.
I don't think he really believes all of the global warming mumbo jumbo but I do think he's courting the side he feels would be more receptive to him.
We made it a policy not to take OBL at his word before 9/11 and 3000 Americans paid the ultimate price for that folly. When he says he wants to create a worldwide Caliphate, should we not believe him? What makes you any more qualified than the rest of us to posit what OBL really meant. Maybe you should keep accusations of sub-level intelligence holstered for a bit.
O rly?
he gets to play the great warrior and get more idiot recruits.
The implication being that he was a man of normal intelligence, and only someone of significantly lower than average intelligence would take anything he says at face value.
I don't think he really believes all of the global warming mumbo jumbo but I do think he's courting the side he feels would be more receptive to him.
We made it a policy not to take OBL at his word before 9/11 and 3000 Americans paid the ultimate price for that folly. When he says he wants to create a worldwide Caliphate, should we not believe him? What makes you any more qualified than the rest of us to posit what OBL really meant. Maybe you should keep accusations of sub-level intelligence holstered for a bit.
Posted by: Jason at September 10, 2007 10:33 AM (B9+zH)
61
"What makes OBL think that we do the exact opposite of what he says?"
I don't. I said;
"If you assume that OBL is smart enough to know that anything he supports is instantly made less popular in the US"
OBLs support makes a position less popular. It doesn't mean that you do the opposite of what he says, but it makes it less popular, both inherently and by giving ammunition to those who oppose that position.
What, you think that he thought that he was helping Kerry?
"Do you think that if Kerry would have been elected OBL would have been mollified into complacency? Please."
No, that is pretty much the opposite of what I suggested. Not that I think that Kerry would have done anything much different, but it may have increased the chances of the US taking a wiser road to dealing with the world. This is a bad thing from OBLs POV.
"I don't think he really believes all of the global warming mumbo jumbo but I do think he's courting the side he feels would be more receptive to him."
He isn't courting any Americans, why would he? No American (Well, maybe a few nutjobs, but nothing over a few thousand) is going to be on his side. He is hated and reviled by almost everyone. The most extreme position taken to OBL in any visible way in the US is that he doesn't exist, not that he is an ally.
Do you think that he believes that a few kind words will mean that the American people will forgive him for 911? How dim do you think that he is?
He is never going to be mollified because his desires are unrealistic and impossible. The US public is never going to come round to his POV because, well, (1) He is the most hated public figure in living memory and (2) he wants you all to convert to Islam which is obviously absurd.
"We made it a policy not to take OBL at his word before 9/11 and 3000 Americans paid the ultimate price for that folly. When he says he wants to create a worldwide Caliphate, should we not believe him?"
No you didn't. You made it policy to find him and kill him. He kept funding ops against you and saying that he was going to do it again.
Yes, he wants a worldwide caliphate, which is why I say that his long term goals are a bit fuzzy (and laughable).
It isn't that silly game where one brother will always lie and the other will always tell the truth. OBL will lie and manipulate when it suits him to and will tell the truth when it suits him to.
"What makes you any more qualified than the rest of us to posit what OBL really meant."
I don't claim to be.
I'm starting from the assumption that the speech was a carefully written piece of psy-ops propeganda by a man with an effective PR team. If you're not starting from that position then you're not looking at it sensibly. The question is simply "Why write that speech? What effects are you expecting to produce?"
"Maybe you should keep accusations of sub-level intelligence holstered for a bit."
What accusations of sub-intelligence? I don't think that any of the players in this are of sub-par intelligence.
Unless you mean the "Stupid steps" comment, in which case that is a case of intelligent people doing very stupid things because of their misguided assumptions, not because of their inherent stupidity.
Ultimately this is pretty simple;
1) Do you think that OBL supporting something is more likely to make Americans support that position or reject it?
2) Do you think that OBL knows this.
I would say that the obvious answer to these is;
1) It is more likely to make them reject it.
2) Yes.
I don't. I said;
"If you assume that OBL is smart enough to know that anything he supports is instantly made less popular in the US"
OBLs support makes a position less popular. It doesn't mean that you do the opposite of what he says, but it makes it less popular, both inherently and by giving ammunition to those who oppose that position.
What, you think that he thought that he was helping Kerry?
"Do you think that if Kerry would have been elected OBL would have been mollified into complacency? Please."
No, that is pretty much the opposite of what I suggested. Not that I think that Kerry would have done anything much different, but it may have increased the chances of the US taking a wiser road to dealing with the world. This is a bad thing from OBLs POV.
"I don't think he really believes all of the global warming mumbo jumbo but I do think he's courting the side he feels would be more receptive to him."
He isn't courting any Americans, why would he? No American (Well, maybe a few nutjobs, but nothing over a few thousand) is going to be on his side. He is hated and reviled by almost everyone. The most extreme position taken to OBL in any visible way in the US is that he doesn't exist, not that he is an ally.
Do you think that he believes that a few kind words will mean that the American people will forgive him for 911? How dim do you think that he is?
He is never going to be mollified because his desires are unrealistic and impossible. The US public is never going to come round to his POV because, well, (1) He is the most hated public figure in living memory and (2) he wants you all to convert to Islam which is obviously absurd.
"We made it a policy not to take OBL at his word before 9/11 and 3000 Americans paid the ultimate price for that folly. When he says he wants to create a worldwide Caliphate, should we not believe him?"
No you didn't. You made it policy to find him and kill him. He kept funding ops against you and saying that he was going to do it again.
Yes, he wants a worldwide caliphate, which is why I say that his long term goals are a bit fuzzy (and laughable).
It isn't that silly game where one brother will always lie and the other will always tell the truth. OBL will lie and manipulate when it suits him to and will tell the truth when it suits him to.
"What makes you any more qualified than the rest of us to posit what OBL really meant."
I don't claim to be.
I'm starting from the assumption that the speech was a carefully written piece of psy-ops propeganda by a man with an effective PR team. If you're not starting from that position then you're not looking at it sensibly. The question is simply "Why write that speech? What effects are you expecting to produce?"
"Maybe you should keep accusations of sub-level intelligence holstered for a bit."
What accusations of sub-intelligence? I don't think that any of the players in this are of sub-par intelligence.
Unless you mean the "Stupid steps" comment, in which case that is a case of intelligent people doing very stupid things because of their misguided assumptions, not because of their inherent stupidity.
Ultimately this is pretty simple;
1) Do you think that OBL supporting something is more likely to make Americans support that position or reject it?
2) Do you think that OBL knows this.
I would say that the obvious answer to these is;
1) It is more likely to make them reject it.
2) Yes.
Posted by: Rafar at September 10, 2007 10:58 AM (kkgmI)
62
Dave,(neo-con Dave, not lib Dave) isn't it possible he's playing to the right, by aligning himself with the left's positions he gives credence to the right.
Capitalist infidel, are you really afraid of the possibility of a global calliphate? Don't see Halloween, you'll have nightmares for months.
Capitalist infidel, are you really afraid of the possibility of a global calliphate? Don't see Halloween, you'll have nightmares for months.
Posted by: Cpl. Cam at September 10, 2007 03:41 PM (kXhlD)
63
The Glasgow Airport, Fort Dix, and the latest foiled German plot bear witness to the fact that these new recruits are about as good at planning as Elmer Fudd. If these are the kind of new recruits the Iraq war is driving to al Qaeda, I say let him have them. Those types of recruits help us far more than they do him.
This just in: CCG applauds continued terror attacks; claims that they help his cause.
The Glasgow Airport, Fort Dix, and the latest foiled German plot bear witness to the fact that these new recruits are about as good at planning as Elmer Fudd. If these are the kind of new recruits the Iraq war is driving to al Qaeda, I say let him have them. Those types of recruits help us far more than they do him.
This just in: CCG applauds continued terror attacks; claims that they help his cause.
Posted by: nunaim at September 10, 2007 04:45 PM (22/Qe)
64
nunaim, thanks for proving that you can take quotes out of context.
More evidence for my diagnosis of trollism, advanced.
More evidence for my diagnosis of trollism, advanced.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 07:23 PM (viASe)
Not the Least Bit Misleading
According to several news organizations, The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, perhaps better known as the Jones Commission Report, states that Iraq's national police force is so broken that they should be disbanded and began over again from scratch.
So says the U.K's Times Online:Ann Scott Tyson and Glenn Kesler of WaPo echo a similar account:
The Iraqi national police force is riddled with militia and corruption and should be disbanded, a panel of retired US military officers has told Congress. The 20-member panel also said today that the Iraqi Army was incapable of acting independently from US forces for at least another 18 months, and "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven". [snip] The commission members, who spent three weeks in Iraq this summer and conducted 150 interviews, were most damning about the Iraqi national police. They said that its parent body, the Interior Ministry, was a ministry "in name only" and rife with sectarianism and corruption. The entire 26,000-member police force should be scrapped and rebuilt anew, they said.
Looking at these and other contemporary articles on the subject, a casual reader skimming the headlines would likely come away with the impression that we've got to fire all of Iraq's policemen and start over from scratch. But what you would probably gather from these accounts is not a full and accurate representation of what the commission says [the report actually says far more, and covers the Iraqi military as well, but we're focusing on this one aspect for the moment]. I know, because I have a copy of the 152-page report in front of me right now. The Jones Commission does advocate the disbanding of the 25,000-man Iraqi National Police, but what neither article mentioned is that the NP is the smallest element of the various police forces under the Ministry of the Interior. The Commission states something quite different regarding the much larger and widespread Iraqi Police Service in their conclusion on page 108 of the report:
Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq rejected an independent commission's recommendation yesterday to disband the 25,000-strong Iraqi national police force, saying that despite sectarian influences the force is improving and that removing it would create dangerous security vacuums in key regions of the country.
There are more than 200,000 civilian personnel in the Iraqi security services, and the commission indicates that the biggest problem for the bulk of those police officers in the Iraqi Police Service is that they undertrained and under-equipped. Tehy also state that if they received the training and material support they need, they are expected to improve rapidly. Funny how the media reports forget to mention that on page 102, the Commission notes that in 2004, the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team requested funding for 6,000 police advisors to train a force of 135,000, and that Congress only approved funds for 1,000 advisors. Today, the Iraqi police have over 230,000 officers, and only 900 international police advisors and roughly 3,500 military personnel filling these necessary advisory roles. Harry Reid and the Democrats keep shrieking that it is time for a "change of course" in Iraq. Perhaps they could start by providing the police with the funding for the advisors they need, which by the way, is another Commission recommendation that you won't hear too many Democrats repeating.
Conclusion: The Iraqi Police Service is incapable today of providing security at a level sufficient to protect Iraqi neighborhoods from insurgents and sectarian violence. The police are central to the long-term establishment of security in Iraq. Tbe be effective in combatting the threats that officers face, including sectarian violence, the Iraqi Police must be better trained and equipped. The Commission believes that the Iraqi Police Service can improve rapidly should the Ministry of the Interior become a more functional institution.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/07/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at September 07, 2007 01:36 PM (gIAM9)
2
Following the time-honored Democrat playbook--stop the funding while demanding progress and bemoaning setbacks. It worked so well in Vietnam at the end....
Posted by: iconoclast at September 07, 2007 10:47 PM (c9S12)
3
The INP has been a problematic step-child since the forces started to shake themselves out in 2005-06. In theory Iraq needs a police system to combat organized crime and its inroads in Iraq, but the folks doing that now are the IA and MNF-I because the criminal element is as well armed as the terrorist/insurgent side and freely associates with them. Having to roll-up the Kazali criminal networks that also supplied insurgents/terrorists required that Special Forces (US and Iraqi) go after them as a vital part of the insurgency.
What Iraq desperately needs is police-level equivalent of an 'Internal Affairs' and anti-corruption unit to look after all police. That is a large part of the jigsaw puzzle still missing and getting individuals who are competent and technocratic in outlook to uphold the law *before* other affiliations is a hard one. With so little civilian organized crime and other National outlooks that are *not* well armed enough to require military intervention, Iraq is having a hard time coming up with necessity of it. Real election laws will require actually adhering to them, but the Parliament, like all legislative bodies, doesn't want to have someone coming after them when they start changing their outlook on the law itself.
The US is not immune to this problem, as witness the lack of *any* high level sting operations against Congress in the 'Abscam' mode. Holding the power of the purse and legislative power as a threat to FBI budgets, means that those sorts of operations just don't happen. Our Congress continually writes itself out of laws, like health and workplace safety and labor laws, to allow them to do things, personally, that even the rest of the government can't do.
If the US is fumbling that aspect of things, why should Iraqis be any better at it? With the IA doing a good job getting folks processed to the Central Criminal Court system, with actual convictions based on evidence and folks let free when it is not sufficient to warrant prosecution or finding a guilty verdict, that part is working well. National Police must be able to handle wider-scope than just intra-Nation so as to identify extra-National actors working in their country. The military can help to understand that, but police have the actual knowledge of the law and international law availble to them so as to better define activities and possible threats.
A re-start may be necessary for this. Looking at the Iraqi Special Forces, however, might lead to an alternative method by utilizing the command and control doctrine for it, but adding in the fully legal aspect to a new unit or set of units. The ISF is proving highly capable, non-aligned and dedicated to their jobs and for any wounded to go beyond ability to carry on the fight, the option of learning the law and enforcing it and commanding new units would leverage those skills and attitudes in a National Police while not creating a separate military police. Co-train with the IA to start with and start implementing different standards for personality and mental outlook and throw the entire INP through it as it exists today. That is a possibility, amongst many... and would be a hell of a workload to learn both tactical and legal operations at the same time. For Iraq is in a nasty neighborhood, geographically, and the police will have to be as tough as the military and even more sharply adhere to civilian law.
Not impossible. Just not quick nor easy.
What Iraq desperately needs is police-level equivalent of an 'Internal Affairs' and anti-corruption unit to look after all police. That is a large part of the jigsaw puzzle still missing and getting individuals who are competent and technocratic in outlook to uphold the law *before* other affiliations is a hard one. With so little civilian organized crime and other National outlooks that are *not* well armed enough to require military intervention, Iraq is having a hard time coming up with necessity of it. Real election laws will require actually adhering to them, but the Parliament, like all legislative bodies, doesn't want to have someone coming after them when they start changing their outlook on the law itself.
The US is not immune to this problem, as witness the lack of *any* high level sting operations against Congress in the 'Abscam' mode. Holding the power of the purse and legislative power as a threat to FBI budgets, means that those sorts of operations just don't happen. Our Congress continually writes itself out of laws, like health and workplace safety and labor laws, to allow them to do things, personally, that even the rest of the government can't do.
If the US is fumbling that aspect of things, why should Iraqis be any better at it? With the IA doing a good job getting folks processed to the Central Criminal Court system, with actual convictions based on evidence and folks let free when it is not sufficient to warrant prosecution or finding a guilty verdict, that part is working well. National Police must be able to handle wider-scope than just intra-Nation so as to identify extra-National actors working in their country. The military can help to understand that, but police have the actual knowledge of the law and international law availble to them so as to better define activities and possible threats.
A re-start may be necessary for this. Looking at the Iraqi Special Forces, however, might lead to an alternative method by utilizing the command and control doctrine for it, but adding in the fully legal aspect to a new unit or set of units. The ISF is proving highly capable, non-aligned and dedicated to their jobs and for any wounded to go beyond ability to carry on the fight, the option of learning the law and enforcing it and commanding new units would leverage those skills and attitudes in a National Police while not creating a separate military police. Co-train with the IA to start with and start implementing different standards for personality and mental outlook and throw the entire INP through it as it exists today. That is a possibility, amongst many... and would be a hell of a workload to learn both tactical and legal operations at the same time. For Iraq is in a nasty neighborhood, geographically, and the police will have to be as tough as the military and even more sharply adhere to civilian law.
Not impossible. Just not quick nor easy.
Posted by: ajacksonian at September 08, 2007 09:52 AM (oy1lQ)
4
Caught a bit of "Meet the Press" this morning, with a couple of the guys heading up this report. I was impressed because the _first_ thing they said when the host brought this up was to make clear the distinction between the National Police (25,000) and the Police Service (200,000).
Posted by: Dave at September 09, 2007 11:21 AM (mjr3n)
September 06, 2007
About That Report
A Hill reporter relayed to Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO's The Corner just how desperate the Democratic leadership is becoming:
The fact of the matter, however, is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Charles Shumer, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have a vested interest in deceiving the American public. They have invested far too much time, energy and credibility in a U.S. defeat. These so-called leaders are not being honest with you. In accordance with Public Law 110-28 (PDF) asked for by this same Democrat-led Congress:
The Democratic leaders are laying it on thick. I was at a press conference this afternoon with Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Murray. They referred to the Petraeus Report as the “Bush Report” about a half-dozen times. Reid even went so far as to correct a reporter when she called it the Petraeus Report. “You mean the Bush Report don’t you?” he said. They must really want the report to come across in the press as administration hackwork rather than an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq.
This is the "Bush Report," written by the Administration. There is no other report being delivered by General Petraeus for the White House to influence. Quite to the contrary, it is the professional assessment of officers in the United States Army in Iraq that will largely shape the President's report. Further, the Congress dictated in Public Law 110-28, that:
The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
There is no "Petraeus Report" for the White House to manipulate. What there is is verbal testimony of General Petraeus to Congress as they requested. Where does the General get the raw data and refined intelligence that he is basing his recommendations upon? I asked that question of Colonel Steven Boylan, U.S. Army Public Affairs Officer to the Commanding General of Multi-National Force Iraq, David Patraeus. Col. Boylan states:
Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.
There is no "Petraeus Report," for the Administration to influence. The material that General Petraeus will use in his testimony was developed from information provided by American soldiers, and no other organization. As General Petraeus told me via email on Sept 3rd:
I can assure you that the words and information that are being used by General Petraeus are from MNF-I... As with any organization, the staff assists the head of the organization with the preparation and development of the materials used, by gathering the data, preparing slides, collating information, etc. This is and has been done by MNF-I, not any other organization. The words that everyone will hear on Monday, September 10th and Tuesday, September 11th are his words and his assessment as part of the joint assessment between Ambassador Crocker and himself.
Democratic leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives are desperate to discredit the straightforward information General Patraeus will provide, and the integrity of the General himself. Perhaps you should start wondering what they don't want you to hear. Update: Additional thoughts from JeffG at Protein Wisdom. ... and here come the confused. How hard is it to read the law or do basic research?
The Ambassador and I are going to give it to them straight and then allow the folks at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue make what clearly is a national decision.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
They have to dis-avow it before it hits the street, or it might make sense.
I had fleeting thoughts of being a politician at one time, thought about the types of people I would have to deal with (all sides), shuddered, went and took a shower and felt better.
I had fleeting thoughts of being a politician at one time, thought about the types of people I would have to deal with (all sides), shuddered, went and took a shower and felt better.
Posted by: Retired Navy at September 07, 2007 05:13 AM (Mv/2X)
2
On my last self-evaluation at work I graded my performance in all categories as excellent. A couple of my coworkers complained about the lack of value or criticism in such self-evaluations. They thought it was a farcical waste of time. I convinced them how wrong they were when I pointed out all my coworkers who felt better about themselves and our jobs because of the excellent marks we gave ourselves.
Posted by: Brendan at September 07, 2007 06:25 AM (1f5WT)
3
Okay, I have to admit to being confused here. The law states, as you show here (and some other folks pointed out on another thread), that there was NEVER to be a "Petreaus" report. There was only ever going to be a report from the White House. Everyone, from the WH press secretary to lowly bloggers, has been referring to this report, all summer, as the Petreaus report. How are Sen. Reid and Co. deceiving anyone by calling the report by its proper name? They're not saying the Bush testimony. They're questioning the veracity of this highly, highly touted "report". I'm trying to wrap my brain around this entire line of criticism and it just plain doesn't make sense to me. There is no Petraeus Report, there's only a White House Report based on Gen. Petraeus' report, but Petraeus is going to give us the straight dope when he testifies, so Sen. Reid is undercutting the report that General Petraeus isn't going to write by calling it the Bush Report, which is what it is. Call me crazy, but I just don't see it.
Also, one of the things they don't want us to hear, at least unchallenged, are things like "There has been a 75% drop in sectarian violence" when there's been no such thing (even when you don't count someone shot through the forehead as a victim of sectarian violence...because everyone knows that being shot in the back of the head is the only way sectarian violence kills).
Also, one of the things they don't want us to hear, at least unchallenged, are things like "There has been a 75% drop in sectarian violence" when there's been no such thing (even when you don't count someone shot through the forehead as a victim of sectarian violence...because everyone knows that being shot in the back of the head is the only way sectarian violence kills).
Posted by: J. at September 07, 2007 06:48 AM (8PABH)
4
According to Petraeus's own remarks he's going to give Congress the facts on the ground and that it isn't going to be colored by the Administration.
Nobody is complaining that Congress will challenge Petraeus's remarks. That would be a good thing. However, what Reid and Company are doing is implying that Petraeus's testimony is some sort of political campaign. That's just nonsense.
Nobody is complaining that Congress will challenge Petraeus's remarks. That would be a good thing. However, what Reid and Company are doing is implying that Petraeus's testimony is some sort of political campaign. That's just nonsense.
Posted by: Jason at September 07, 2007 07:31 AM (yIEot)
5
J, it's really quite simple: the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives and Senate are trying to undercut the credibility of General Petraeus by dishonestly stating that he is a sockpuppet for the White House.
The rest is wordplay.
The rest is wordplay.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 07, 2007 07:46 AM (0BhZ5)
6
J, you really shouldn't be confused. As I pointed out to you on the previous thread, it is within the realm of reason and good use of the English language to call Petraeus testimony a "report." It's merely an oral report as opposed to a written one.
Please, attempt to comprehend what you are speaking about before putting fingers to keyboard.
Please, attempt to comprehend what you are speaking about before putting fingers to keyboard.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 07, 2007 09:03 AM (viASe)
7
Friday Smackdown...Yeah!
Posted by: T.Ferg at September 07, 2007 09:06 AM (2YVh7)
8
What they're trying to do, IMO, is damage control.
They are about to be hit by one of the biggest examples of BLOWBACK in recent political history.
When they were crafting the language of HR 2206 (which became PL 110-2
, it was hip to be anti-war.
None of the Democrats knew about Phantom Thunder, either. PL 110-28 was signed May 25. Phantom Thunder, the first combat offensive of the surge, started on/about June 15.
You gotta give Bush some credit here. He's Texas Two-Stepped the Democrats, again. He got them to approve Petraeus and the surge, got them to approve emergency supplemental appropriations, then Petraeus used the surge and the money to start kicking ass and taking names.
Confederate Yankee: MASH Here for the ACSIM Congressional Page. It is a good resource for information on military authorizations and appropriations (good if you're a federal contractor, too!).
They are about to be hit by one of the biggest examples of BLOWBACK in recent political history.
When they were crafting the language of HR 2206 (which became PL 110-2
, it was hip to be anti-war.
None of the Democrats knew about Phantom Thunder, either. PL 110-28 was signed May 25. Phantom Thunder, the first combat offensive of the surge, started on/about June 15.
You gotta give Bush some credit here. He's Texas Two-Stepped the Democrats, again. He got them to approve Petraeus and the surge, got them to approve emergency supplemental appropriations, then Petraeus used the surge and the money to start kicking ass and taking names.
Confederate Yankee: MASH Here for the ACSIM Congressional Page. It is a good resource for information on military authorizations and appropriations (good if you're a federal contractor, too!).
Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 10:01 AM (38EUg)
9
I wonder if the Dems would call Petraeus a liar if he came back and said the surge was a miserable failure. Somehow I doubt it. But if he comes back and says it's working, then he is a liar and it's actually the "Bush Report". These trolls make me sick.
It doesn't matter what's best for our country. Only what's best for the Democrat Party.
It doesn't matter what's best for our country. Only what's best for the Democrat Party.
Posted by: jbiccum at September 07, 2007 10:11 AM (Rd4s4)
10
It's hard to see much honesty at work with these Democrats and other anti-war advocates. Anything that undercuts their position must be attacked however it can be with no quarter given and never giving an inch--as we saw in the TNR/Beauchamp affair and are now seeing with Gen. Petraeus.
I believe that a principled opposition of the Iraq War is possible, but mostly that's not what I'm reading or hearing from its opponents.
I believe that a principled opposition of the Iraq War is possible, but mostly that's not what I'm reading or hearing from its opponents.
Posted by: huxley at September 07, 2007 11:12 AM (rOvvS)
11
Huxley,
Truth be told, the most principled opposition to OIF comes from the so-called "paleo-conservatives," such as Pat Buchanan. Their opposition is ideologcally and intellectually honest.
As Michael Totten wrote once, liberals should have gotten behind OIF and the liberation of Iraq as the great progressive cause of our time. Empowering and enfranchising women. Democratizing a subjugated people. Establishing a liberal democracy in a place where it had not existed. Even government healthcare, schools and infrastructure projects abound. What's not for a liberal to love in Iraq?
Truth be told, the most principled opposition to OIF comes from the so-called "paleo-conservatives," such as Pat Buchanan. Their opposition is ideologcally and intellectually honest.
As Michael Totten wrote once, liberals should have gotten behind OIF and the liberation of Iraq as the great progressive cause of our time. Empowering and enfranchising women. Democratizing a subjugated people. Establishing a liberal democracy in a place where it had not existed. Even government healthcare, schools and infrastructure projects abound. What's not for a liberal to love in Iraq?
Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 11:34 AM (38EUg)
12
Dave -- I'm not quite clear what a paleo-conservative is, though I'll take your word for it.
Frankly I still consider myself a liberal and I support the Iraq War for pretty much the reasons you list. I thought opposing fascism and religious intolerance, while promoting democracy, rights for women, gays, and individuals were bedrock for liberals. Those are my values. I can understand some skepticism to support a Republican President's war, but I find the utter closed-mindedness and outright viciousness my former comrades express towards Bush and the war to be profoundly disappointing.
Did I miss the memo that said that freedom and democracy only counted as values when they could be used to attack the United States?
Frankly I still consider myself a liberal and I support the Iraq War for pretty much the reasons you list. I thought opposing fascism and religious intolerance, while promoting democracy, rights for women, gays, and individuals were bedrock for liberals. Those are my values. I can understand some skepticism to support a Republican President's war, but I find the utter closed-mindedness and outright viciousness my former comrades express towards Bush and the war to be profoundly disappointing.
Did I miss the memo that said that freedom and democracy only counted as values when they could be used to attack the United States?
Posted by: huxley at September 07, 2007 11:52 AM (rOvvS)
13
Huxley,
Since being tagged with the "neocon" term sometime earlier this year (I had to look it up to see what it was), I've become pretty sure that a paleo-con is a Cold War era conservative cut from the mold of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan (a man I adored enough to enlist for). I always thought that to liberals, all of us on the right look the same.
On the ideological spectrum, I consider radical Islamists so far the right of both of us that I think we ought to be able to put aside domestic political differences and work together to defeat a common enemy.
No matter how we might differ on what the word "freedom" really means, we ought to be able to agree that what the Tangos have in mind isn't close to either of our ideas of freedom.
Since being tagged with the "neocon" term sometime earlier this year (I had to look it up to see what it was), I've become pretty sure that a paleo-con is a Cold War era conservative cut from the mold of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan (a man I adored enough to enlist for). I always thought that to liberals, all of us on the right look the same.
On the ideological spectrum, I consider radical Islamists so far the right of both of us that I think we ought to be able to put aside domestic political differences and work together to defeat a common enemy.
No matter how we might differ on what the word "freedom" really means, we ought to be able to agree that what the Tangos have in mind isn't close to either of our ideas of freedom.
Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 12:04 PM (38EUg)
14
Dave,
It certainly seems to me that 99.9% of Americans ought to be able to put aside political differences to defeat radical Islam. I'm continually surprised that about half the country doesn't get that. So, good to meetcha!
There was a time that the right did look all the same to me. So I'm also surprised by the differences between the neocons and the James Baker-style Republicans.
I don't know how I should be labeled these days. It seems that these days to be a genuine liberal makes one a conservative. A lot of liberals seem to me to be more accurately termed leftists. Interestingly, they no longer want to call themselves liberals--as HRC mentioned her preference to be called progressive. Fine with me. I still think liberal in the classic sense is a term worth preserving.
It certainly seems to me that 99.9% of Americans ought to be able to put aside political differences to defeat radical Islam. I'm continually surprised that about half the country doesn't get that. So, good to meetcha!
There was a time that the right did look all the same to me. So I'm also surprised by the differences between the neocons and the James Baker-style Republicans.
I don't know how I should be labeled these days. It seems that these days to be a genuine liberal makes one a conservative. A lot of liberals seem to me to be more accurately termed leftists. Interestingly, they no longer want to call themselves liberals--as HRC mentioned her preference to be called progressive. Fine with me. I still think liberal in the classic sense is a term worth preserving.
Posted by: huxley at September 07, 2007 01:15 PM (Qt1f1)
15
Despicable conduct by the Dems in an effort to smear a good man (and by all accounts, a brilliant strategist). I wish I could say I was surprised. Unfortunately, no matter what the situation on the ground seems to be (and I will say that it seems premature to declare victory), a certain number of lawmakers appear hell-bent on declaring defeat (also prematurely). Their refusal to listen to Petraeus only further invalidates them.
Posted by: Nathan Tabor at September 07, 2007 04:53 PM (6fTrU)
16
Huxley,
There are no Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Atheists or whatevers in a foxhole.
Frankly, I think that's where we are. We're in a foxhole, we're well armed, well trained, well commanded and well funded. We know who the enemy is, and what their objective is.
We can settle our petty differences soon enough, but out there... There's a bunch of Tangos who want us all either dead or paying the tax.
And I ain't planning on either.
There are no Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Atheists or whatevers in a foxhole.
Frankly, I think that's where we are. We're in a foxhole, we're well armed, well trained, well commanded and well funded. We know who the enemy is, and what their objective is.
We can settle our petty differences soon enough, but out there... There's a bunch of Tangos who want us all either dead or paying the tax.
And I ain't planning on either.
Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 07:36 PM (N3OI9)
17
Ya know what I find humorous?
It wasn't that long ago that the Dems in Congress were (rightly) castigating Bush for not listening to the generals.
Now who's not listening to the generals?
It wasn't that long ago that the Dems in Congress were (rightly) castigating Bush for not listening to the generals.
Now who's not listening to the generals?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 07, 2007 08:03 PM (viASe)
18
Dave -- I once tried to explain to an anti-war friend the basic difference between her position and mine. Those who support the Iraq War believe we really are at war. Those who don't, don't.
The rest of the discussions--like this business with Gen. Petraeus--are a sort of shadowboxing. The anti-war folks proceed from the assumption that the war is wrong, morally and realistically, and therefore they only use information that validates that viewpoint, as CCG notes. Obviously if Petraeus returned to Washington with news of gloom and doom in Iraq, he would be a great hero like Daniel Ellsberg and there would be none of this undercutting and gainsaying.
I find this approach intellectually dishonest.
The rest of the discussions--like this business with Gen. Petraeus--are a sort of shadowboxing. The anti-war folks proceed from the assumption that the war is wrong, morally and realistically, and therefore they only use information that validates that viewpoint, as CCG notes. Obviously if Petraeus returned to Washington with news of gloom and doom in Iraq, he would be a great hero like Daniel Ellsberg and there would be none of this undercutting and gainsaying.
I find this approach intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: huxley at September 07, 2007 10:06 PM (Qt1f1)
19
Huxley, liberalism/leftism is itself intellectually dishonest.
To proclaim that you want to expand freedom while circumscribing it through an expanding state is intellectually dishonest.
To say that you will make people's lives better by taking away their hard-earned wages through taxes is intellectually dishonest.
And to declare that we would be safer by not pursuing those who seek to do us harm is not only intellectually dishonest, it's downright stupid.
To proclaim that you want to expand freedom while circumscribing it through an expanding state is intellectually dishonest.
To say that you will make people's lives better by taking away their hard-earned wages through taxes is intellectually dishonest.
And to declare that we would be safer by not pursuing those who seek to do us harm is not only intellectually dishonest, it's downright stupid.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 09:52 AM (viASe)
20
What's not for a liberal to love in Iraq?
The fact that it won't succeed without 500,000 troops in country.
The fact that it won't succeed without 500,000 troops in country.
Posted by: Voice of Reason at September 08, 2007 12:02 PM (K1Emm)
21
VoR, then how is it getting better there with far less than that? Even your own Democrats are saying so.
Methinks I detect flailing.
Methinks I detect flailing.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 01:01 PM (viASe)
22
VoR, then how is it getting better there with far less than that? Even your own Democrats are saying so.
By what metric are things getting better? Attacks may be down in Anbar, or wherever we concentrate the troops in any given month, but that doesn't mean the situation in the entire country is getting better. Of the 18 benchmarks laid out, only 3 are considered to be showing "progress".
By what metric are things getting better? Attacks may be down in Anbar, or wherever we concentrate the troops in any given month, but that doesn't mean the situation in the entire country is getting better. Of the 18 benchmarks laid out, only 3 are considered to be showing "progress".
Posted by: Voice of Reason at September 08, 2007 02:18 PM (K1Emm)
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 04:23 PM (viASe)
24
Ask Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA).
So what, you found a dem who thinks there's progress. That's not what I asked for -- a metric by which to measure success in Iraq.
So what, you found a dem who thinks there's progress. That's not what I asked for -- a metric by which to measure success in Iraq.
Posted by: Voice of Reason at September 08, 2007 11:08 PM (K1Emm)
25
"However, what Reid and Company are doing is implying that Petraeus's testimony is some sort of political campaign."
I wonder what they will be doing after the session?
Oh yes, appearing Fox.
You people really are suckers for a PR campaign, aren't you? It is almost as if you enjoy it.
I wonder what they will be doing after the session?
Oh yes, appearing Fox.
You people really are suckers for a PR campaign, aren't you? It is almost as if you enjoy it.
Posted by: Rafar at September 10, 2007 04:34 AM (kkgmI)
26
"That's not what I asked for -- a metric by which to measure success in Iraq."
What metric would YOU measure success in Iraq?
What metric would YOU measure success in Iraq?
Posted by: Dan Irving at September 10, 2007 11:34 AM (zw8QA)
Democrats Support the Troops
Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Shumer and Democratic Senators/Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were among those Senators who voted to confirm General Petraeus to his position as commander of American forces in Iraq without a single objecting vote, 81-0, on January 26, 2007. They did not question the capability of the 1974 West Point graduate and Princeton PhD when they had their chance to reject him. Nor did they denounce or even raise serious doubts about allegiences or partisanship then, when they easily could have stated their disgreement with a simple "no" vote. What a difference 223 days and the fear of success makes.
Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted. "The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. "We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' " The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:40 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So once again, he Dems set the table while and tone of the debate while Reublicans set around with their thumbs, you know where.
Im just about finished with this gang of wimps.
Im just about finished with this gang of wimps.
Posted by: Tom Gray at September 06, 2007 11:34 AM (z/R8a)
2
The anti-war left is following the same tactical progression they did 40 years ago. Attack the President and "hawks" first. Then attack the military brass. The next step will be to attack the troops as baby killers and rapists.
Oh, wait...
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Dave at September 06, 2007 11:46 AM (38EUg)
3
They have to stand behind him in the confirmation process, so they can stab him in the back.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 06, 2007 12:51 PM (VNM5w)
4
You're right, there's no better way to discredit something these days than by tieing it to the chronic liars at the Bush White House.
They call it the Bush report because Petraeus isn't writing it, the White House is, they announced that last month. You must have missed it.
Petraeus himself has been distorting facts and outright lying in appearances in rightwing media outlets trying to sell the surge. His past work training the Iraqi military has been a disaster. The proof is in the pudding, the Iraqi military is incompetent, corrupt, and riven with sectarianism. One of his top aides in that effort, Lt Col Levonda Joey Selph is being investigated for billions of dollars worth of missing weapons.
There are any number of reports, (GAO, Jones, NIE, etc.) that refute with facts the politicized military and Bush White House PR offensive that the surge is working. US casualties are up, Iraqi casualties are up, sectarian killings are up, Maliki's government is falling apart, there is little to no security, potable water, electricity, or working sewers in most parts of the country. There is a cholera outbreak north of Baghdad. We're arming Sunni insurgents in Anbar. Sure they'll use them against AQ wannabes but you can be sure they'll eventually use them against the Shiites, Kurds and our guys. They've said as much. You don't end a civil war by arming everybody to the teeth.
None of the political benchmarks the surge was supposed to allow breathing room for have been met. We never had enough troops to pacify Iraq. The few more brigades we sent were sent because it was all we had to send. This is no plan for success, it's just another attempt to put off the inevitable. And in the long run by arming everyone it'll make the violence much worse.
They call it the Bush report because Petraeus isn't writing it, the White House is, they announced that last month. You must have missed it.
Petraeus himself has been distorting facts and outright lying in appearances in rightwing media outlets trying to sell the surge. His past work training the Iraqi military has been a disaster. The proof is in the pudding, the Iraqi military is incompetent, corrupt, and riven with sectarianism. One of his top aides in that effort, Lt Col Levonda Joey Selph is being investigated for billions of dollars worth of missing weapons.
There are any number of reports, (GAO, Jones, NIE, etc.) that refute with facts the politicized military and Bush White House PR offensive that the surge is working. US casualties are up, Iraqi casualties are up, sectarian killings are up, Maliki's government is falling apart, there is little to no security, potable water, electricity, or working sewers in most parts of the country. There is a cholera outbreak north of Baghdad. We're arming Sunni insurgents in Anbar. Sure they'll use them against AQ wannabes but you can be sure they'll eventually use them against the Shiites, Kurds and our guys. They've said as much. You don't end a civil war by arming everybody to the teeth.
None of the political benchmarks the surge was supposed to allow breathing room for have been met. We never had enough troops to pacify Iraq. The few more brigades we sent were sent because it was all we had to send. This is no plan for success, it's just another attempt to put off the inevitable. And in the long run by arming everyone it'll make the violence much worse.
Posted by: markg8 at September 06, 2007 02:42 PM (7xxF4)
5
Hold on a second here.
No one is saying anything is wrong with Petraeus. You're creating a straw-man argument here.
The issue here is that the "Petraeus report" was to be an honest and factual report from the commanders on the ground on how effective the surge was.
We have been waiting from an assessment that was supposed to have an air of legitimacy because it wasn't in any way influenced by the administration. The same administration that desperately wants the surge to succeed. Since it is their policy that is being judged it would seem that they shouldn't be the ones doing the judging, right?
Now we know that the report is going to be largely written and presented by that same administration without much candid testimony from Petraeus himself.
It was a typical bait-and-switch used to gain time for a failed foreign policy.
No one is saying anything is wrong with Petraeus. You're creating a straw-man argument here.
The issue here is that the "Petraeus report" was to be an honest and factual report from the commanders on the ground on how effective the surge was.
We have been waiting from an assessment that was supposed to have an air of legitimacy because it wasn't in any way influenced by the administration. The same administration that desperately wants the surge to succeed. Since it is their policy that is being judged it would seem that they shouldn't be the ones doing the judging, right?
Now we know that the report is going to be largely written and presented by that same administration without much candid testimony from Petraeus himself.
It was a typical bait-and-switch used to gain time for a failed foreign policy.
Posted by: Bubba at September 06, 2007 02:51 PM (FHixP)
6
Sadly, some folks just can't be intellectually honest. What Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, etc are trying to do is conflate and then misrepresent two separate things, which is one of their standard tactics. They obviously fooled Bubba.
Here's reality.
The White House, by law, must submit a report on the progess towards the 18 benchmarks. That is what the Adminstration has a hand in, and that can accurately be called the "Bush Report," if you so desire. But Petraeus is not an author of it, and was never supposed to be.
The Army is supposed to provide infomration for the White House report, and General Petraeus is expected to provide testimony in front of Congress on the progress they've seen and the challenges that remain, and no doubt, explain what elements of the war have evolved and changed since his last time speaking before Congress.
I thought about deleting markg8's comment for all the unsupported troll-grade garbage it contains, but then figured it serves as an excellent example of the kind of fevered, deceptive, and dishonest rhetoric we're hearing in advance of Petraeus' testimony.
You know, our guys must be doing quite well (as the overwheming majority of embed reporting show) for those on the left to be working so hard to undermine the General's testimony.
It may glibly be called "friendly fire," but then, he's quite literally survived that before.
Here's reality.
The White House, by law, must submit a report on the progess towards the 18 benchmarks. That is what the Adminstration has a hand in, and that can accurately be called the "Bush Report," if you so desire. But Petraeus is not an author of it, and was never supposed to be.
The Army is supposed to provide infomration for the White House report, and General Petraeus is expected to provide testimony in front of Congress on the progress they've seen and the challenges that remain, and no doubt, explain what elements of the war have evolved and changed since his last time speaking before Congress.
I thought about deleting markg8's comment for all the unsupported troll-grade garbage it contains, but then figured it serves as an excellent example of the kind of fevered, deceptive, and dishonest rhetoric we're hearing in advance of Petraeus' testimony.
You know, our guys must be doing quite well (as the overwheming majority of embed reporting show) for those on the left to be working so hard to undermine the General's testimony.
It may glibly be called "friendly fire," but then, he's quite literally survived that before.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 06, 2007 03:26 PM (ScOBm)
7
So let me get this straight:
Gen. David Petraeus, a multiple decorated combat veteran, brilliant military strategist, highly accomplished leader, widely respected soldier, teacher and author is a dirty liar
And Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and "Markg8" are men of integrity
L O F'in L
Gen. David Petraeus, a multiple decorated combat veteran, brilliant military strategist, highly accomplished leader, widely respected soldier, teacher and author is a dirty liar
And Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and "Markg8" are men of integrity
L O F'in L
Posted by: TMF at September 06, 2007 03:59 PM (KTgUG)
8
Pardon me, markg8 and Bubba, but the US military is full of professionals who owe allegiance to the nation and the constitution. They are not members of the military. You have just impugned the honor of General Petraeus and the officers who are putting together that report. You just defamed them. Do you have any proof that they are going to lie in that report? Or are you just letting your hatred of George Bush cloud your judgment and reason?
The answers, I think, are 'no' and 'yes' respectively.
The answers, I think, are 'no' and 'yes' respectively.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 06, 2007 04:23 PM (Wt5EU)
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 06, 2007 04:26 PM (Wt5EU)
10
No one is saying anything is wrong with Petraeus.
Reid was on record months ago stating he didn't believe Petraeus would tell the truth about the status of Iraq.
Reid was on record months ago stating he didn't believe Petraeus would tell the truth about the status of Iraq.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 06, 2007 05:15 PM (mrNpK)
11
So if I'm understanding this correctly, Petreaus was given a set of guidelines for his report BY CONGRESS as to what and when he should report back on matters in Iraq, and then was sent out with their unamimous approval, and now he's returned to report to them as per their wishes.
And Congress's reaction?
"HOW DARE YOU REPORT BACK TO US ON SEPTEMBER 11!!" (Even though that's the date that Congress set)
and
"HOW DARE YOU COME BACK TO US AS WE ASKED YOU TO WITH ANYTHING BUT A HOPELESS, DESPAIRING REPORT ON THE SITUATION IN IRAQ!!"
I'll bet my last dollar that if Petreaus came back with a report that said "Get out, and get out now" he and what he says would be treated with a lot more respect by the pro-Iraq war right than the looney left is treating him now.
Shame on them.
And Congress's reaction?
"HOW DARE YOU REPORT BACK TO US ON SEPTEMBER 11!!" (Even though that's the date that Congress set)
and
"HOW DARE YOU COME BACK TO US AS WE ASKED YOU TO WITH ANYTHING BUT A HOPELESS, DESPAIRING REPORT ON THE SITUATION IN IRAQ!!"
I'll bet my last dollar that if Petreaus came back with a report that said "Get out, and get out now" he and what he says would be treated with a lot more respect by the pro-Iraq war right than the looney left is treating him now.
Shame on them.
Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at September 06, 2007 05:22 PM (ppKzH)
12
Bush’s WH is writing the report they claim will be Petraeus’s. I doubt Petraeus will stray far from their line. He hasn’t so far.
http://tinyurl.com/2nr2r5
“Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.”
You can claim it was always meant to be written by
the WH CY but that's not what Bush has been saying for months. On top of that why even cite a Mooney Times article lambasting Dems for calling it the Bush report and then complain about it yourself? You're not making any sense.
We've been watching for months as Petraeus and his men in Baghdad reclassify deaths differently than they used to and cherry pick data to make their case.
Apparently Petraeus was picked for his loyalty to Bush, not his competence. Hate to tarnish that shining star but here’s a report you ought to read.
http://tinyurl.com/24wv36
“Army Criminal Investigation Command, Department of Justice, FBI and other federal agencies are investigating widening network of criminal cases involving purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces; officials say it amounts to largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in conflict; inquiry has led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected; one investigation involves Lt Col Levonda Joey Selph, senior American officer who worked closely with Gen David H Petraeus”
The Iraqi Army according to Gen. Jones today in Senate testimony cannot stand on it’s own, it’ll be one year to 18 months before they can operate without US help against the insurgents and two years before they’ll have their logistics set up. If somebody doesn’t steal the whole logistics train and sell it to the insurgents first that is.
http://tinyurl.com/2nr2r5
“Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.”
You can claim it was always meant to be written by
the WH CY but that's not what Bush has been saying for months. On top of that why even cite a Mooney Times article lambasting Dems for calling it the Bush report and then complain about it yourself? You're not making any sense.
We've been watching for months as Petraeus and his men in Baghdad reclassify deaths differently than they used to and cherry pick data to make their case.
Apparently Petraeus was picked for his loyalty to Bush, not his competence. Hate to tarnish that shining star but here’s a report you ought to read.
http://tinyurl.com/24wv36
“Army Criminal Investigation Command, Department of Justice, FBI and other federal agencies are investigating widening network of criminal cases involving purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces; officials say it amounts to largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in conflict; inquiry has led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected; one investigation involves Lt Col Levonda Joey Selph, senior American officer who worked closely with Gen David H Petraeus”
The Iraqi Army according to Gen. Jones today in Senate testimony cannot stand on it’s own, it’ll be one year to 18 months before they can operate without US help against the insurgents and two years before they’ll have their logistics set up. If somebody doesn’t steal the whole logistics train and sell it to the insurgents first that is.
Posted by: markg8 at September 06, 2007 05:31 PM (7xxF4)
13
I checked around online and I couldn't find any reference to a seperate WH report mandated/asked for by Congress, only the report that was originally touted as coming directly from Gen. Petraeus, but that has been reported, objectively, as being drafted and written by the White House, and delivered by the General. If you can point me to a story about the two different reports, I'd much appreciate it.
Posted by: J. at September 06, 2007 05:39 PM (/hFqr)
14
General Petraeus has impugned his own honor. How?
The summer long PR offensive to sell the surge on Hugh Hewitt's show and other rightwing media outlets. Reporting directly to Republicans but not Democrats in congress. Ginning up statistics to show progress and refusing to show his methodology when questioned on the changes. Allowing derisive bios of Democratic congressmen and women to be posted around his command in Baghdad.
Allowing yourself and your command to be politicized is not only dishonorable it's incredibly stupid and probably illegal. He fits right in with the Bush Administration.
You may remember this:
"Why should we suspect Petreaus might spin his report?
Because he has a well documented history of doing so.
On September 26, 2004 -- approximately six weeks before a presidential election in which the deteriorating situation in Iraq was an increasingly important issue -- Petraeus, then in charge of training Iraqi security forces, published an op-ed in The Washington Post. He wrote glowingly of the progress the Iraqi security forces were making under his tutelage. According to the article, training was on track and increasing in capacity, more than 200,000 Iraqis were performing a wide variety of security missions, 45 Iraqi National Guard battalions and six regular Iraqi army battalions were conducting operations on a daily basis, and six additional regular army battalions and six Iraqi Intervention Force battalions would become operational by the end of November 2004. The Bush administration's policy at that time was "we will stand down when they stand up." Petraeus' article, accordingly, had the effect of telling the electorate that there was light at the end of the tunnel.
The op-ed was patently false and misleading, but that was not the worst part. If Petraeus wrote and published the article on his own initiative, he was injecting himself improperly into a political campaign. If he was encouraged (or even authorized) to do so by his civilian superiors, they were abusing military professionalism for partisan political purposes."
The summer long PR offensive to sell the surge on Hugh Hewitt's show and other rightwing media outlets. Reporting directly to Republicans but not Democrats in congress. Ginning up statistics to show progress and refusing to show his methodology when questioned on the changes. Allowing derisive bios of Democratic congressmen and women to be posted around his command in Baghdad.
Allowing yourself and your command to be politicized is not only dishonorable it's incredibly stupid and probably illegal. He fits right in with the Bush Administration.
You may remember this:
"Why should we suspect Petreaus might spin his report?
Because he has a well documented history of doing so.
On September 26, 2004 -- approximately six weeks before a presidential election in which the deteriorating situation in Iraq was an increasingly important issue -- Petraeus, then in charge of training Iraqi security forces, published an op-ed in The Washington Post. He wrote glowingly of the progress the Iraqi security forces were making under his tutelage. According to the article, training was on track and increasing in capacity, more than 200,000 Iraqis were performing a wide variety of security missions, 45 Iraqi National Guard battalions and six regular Iraqi army battalions were conducting operations on a daily basis, and six additional regular army battalions and six Iraqi Intervention Force battalions would become operational by the end of November 2004. The Bush administration's policy at that time was "we will stand down when they stand up." Petraeus' article, accordingly, had the effect of telling the electorate that there was light at the end of the tunnel.
The op-ed was patently false and misleading, but that was not the worst part. If Petraeus wrote and published the article on his own initiative, he was injecting himself improperly into a political campaign. If he was encouraged (or even authorized) to do so by his civilian superiors, they were abusing military professionalism for partisan political purposes."
Posted by: markg8 at September 06, 2007 05:43 PM (7xxF4)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 06, 2007 05:52 PM (Lgw9b)
16
No, markg8 - you impugned his honor by saying that a report that he has yet to give will be dishonest.
But, since you're here, and you and Bubba can predict what will be in a document/testimony that is yet to be delivered...
Could you guys give me the numbers for tommorrow's MegaMillions lottery? Even a few hundred thousand dollars would go a long way.
But, since you're here, and you and Bubba can predict what will be in a document/testimony that is yet to be delivered...
Could you guys give me the numbers for tommorrow's MegaMillions lottery? Even a few hundred thousand dollars would go a long way.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 06, 2007 07:06 PM (Wt5EU)
17
Public Law 110-28 specifes that "the President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress."
The law separately requires that: "[T]he United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress."
"Petraeus" Report
PL 110-28
The law separately requires that: "[T]he United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress."
"Petraeus" Report
PL 110-28
Posted by: SouthernRoots at September 06, 2007 07:22 PM (EsOdX)
18
Exactly, SouthernRoots. And markg8 and Bubba stated that whatever information General Petraeus provides to Congress (whether in written form or sworn testimony) on this subject will be a lie.
If that isn't defamation, then I do not understand defamation. Or mere insult.
If that isn't defamation, then I do not understand defamation. Or mere insult.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 06, 2007 07:30 PM (Wt5EU)
19
http://tinyurl.com/2nr2r5
Curious those "administration officials" don't care to speak on the record. One rather suspects those administration officials are named Reid and Durbin.
Curious those "administration officials" don't care to speak on the record. One rather suspects those administration officials are named Reid and Durbin.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 06, 2007 07:41 PM (mrNpK)
20
I checked around online and I couldn't find any reference to a seperate WH report mandated/asked for by Congress, only the report that was originally touted as coming directly from Gen. Petraeus, but that has been reported, objectively, as being drafted and written by the White House, and delivered by the General. If you can point me to a story about the two different reports, I'd much appreciate it.
Posted by: J. at September 6, 2007 05:39 PM
Certainly, J. Glad to oblige.
First, a link (helpfully shortened by TinyURL) to the full text of the law, Public Law 110-28, at the Government Printing Office website.
Now, the relevant portions, with emphasis added:
(2) Reports required.
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
(C) If the President's assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.
(E) The reporting requirement detailed in section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 is waived from the date of the enactment of this Act through the period ending September 15, 2007.
(3) Testimony before congress.-- Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.
Now, if one wished to be extraordinarily pedantic, one could contend that there will be one report (the President's) and one testimony (General Petraeus', as Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq). However, it could just as easily be argued that there are two reports, one written (the President's), and one oral (General Petraeus').
However, any attempt to deny that the above are two completely separate items is clearly in error, given the text of the law.
Posted by: J. at September 6, 2007 05:39 PM
Certainly, J. Glad to oblige.
First, a link (helpfully shortened by TinyURL) to the full text of the law, Public Law 110-28, at the Government Printing Office website.
Now, the relevant portions, with emphasis added:
(2) Reports required.
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
(C) If the President's assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.
(E) The reporting requirement detailed in section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 is waived from the date of the enactment of this Act through the period ending September 15, 2007.
(3) Testimony before congress.-- Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.
Now, if one wished to be extraordinarily pedantic, one could contend that there will be one report (the President's) and one testimony (General Petraeus', as Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq). However, it could just as easily be argued that there are two reports, one written (the President's), and one oral (General Petraeus').
However, any attempt to deny that the above are two completely separate items is clearly in error, given the text of the law.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 06, 2007 07:50 PM (viASe)
21
C-C-G, one would have to be unusually pedantic to claim that a proffered witness' oral testimony on the document submitted is not a report. General Petraeus can be questioned line for line on the report and asked what supports the assertions of each conclusion of the written report he is testifying to. If that testimony (and the transcript) is not a report to Congress then there is no such thing as witness testimony or cross examination.
BTW, prefiled direct testimony sponsored by an available witness is very common in adminstrative hearings, especially hearings on technical subjects.
That is a sworn report to Congress. If the members of Congress do not avail themselves and question General Petraeus closely, then maybe we need to replace them.
BTW, prefiled direct testimony sponsored by an available witness is very common in adminstrative hearings, especially hearings on technical subjects.
That is a sworn report to Congress. If the members of Congress do not avail themselves and question General Petraeus closely, then maybe we need to replace them.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 06, 2007 08:40 PM (Wt5EU)
22
True, Mikey, very true.
One wonders if J will be so pedantic as to deny that General Petraeus' testimony is a separate report from the President's report.
One wonders if J will be so pedantic as to deny that General Petraeus' testimony is a separate report from the President's report.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 06, 2007 08:42 PM (viASe)
23
Speaking of reports and congress availing themselves, the past two reports have shown the progress in Anbar. Clearly congress did not avail themselves of their own mandated report. From Nov 2006 to the May 2007 attacks in Anbar dropped 39%. Moreover. Anbar moved from the most violent to the third most violent province. There in the record and still everyone, especially congress was surprised.
Posted by: CoRev at September 06, 2007 09:20 PM (0U8Ob)
24
Report Schmort! Who gives a flying crap about that report, like it matters if it goes North or South, as if it will change our position in the war? Why can't they bring back Star Trek so you bloggers have something better to do!
Posted by: John Bryan at September 06, 2007 09:53 PM (yGOyP)
25
John Bryan, why can't they bring back Three's Company so blog trolls have something better to do?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 06, 2007 09:55 PM (viASe)
26
Thanks both, C-C-G and SouthernRoots. I appreciate the info and the links. I think that everyone involved in this, including the administration, has been extremely imprecise in how this has been discussed. All summer, the administration has prepared the public for the "Petreaus" Report and then, recently, stated that the report would be written by the White House. Since that was the intention all along, it should have been made clearer. Especially since, as I recall, the administration was reluctant to let General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker testify in the open.
That aside, and with all due respect, I don't think General Petraeus' honor is the issue here. I don't think questioning his intentions, especially in light of a record of distortions and unfounded statements on his part, constitutes not supporting the troops in the field. I think that saying so is a smear on the patriotism of duly elected officials and serves only to stifle debate and discussion on the most vital issue facing this country right now.
Both the report and the testimony have been shown already to be flawed and compromised by domestic politic issues. To approach them with skepticism is a sensible position. What you all seem to fail to grasp is that one can support the troops, hope for the best in their mission, love your country and still not trust those in charge. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
That aside, and with all due respect, I don't think General Petraeus' honor is the issue here. I don't think questioning his intentions, especially in light of a record of distortions and unfounded statements on his part, constitutes not supporting the troops in the field. I think that saying so is a smear on the patriotism of duly elected officials and serves only to stifle debate and discussion on the most vital issue facing this country right now.
Both the report and the testimony have been shown already to be flawed and compromised by domestic politic issues. To approach them with skepticism is a sensible position. What you all seem to fail to grasp is that one can support the troops, hope for the best in their mission, love your country and still not trust those in charge. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
Posted by: J. at September 07, 2007 06:36 AM (8PABH)
27
"Reporting directly to Republicans but not Democrats in congress""
LIE
Petraeus met with and reported to several Dem members, and offered to meet with others, including Jack Murtha (D-Abscam) who refused and then lied about it on television
"They are ginning up statistics to show progress"
LIE
Watch the news lately? Only a moron would fail to see that the amount of violence, bombings, US casualties due to enemy action have dramatically declined in the last several months of the surge
You think the numbers are fabricated? PROVE IT LIAR
CY, its time for this lying piece of garbage to go. Argue in good faith all you want. Lies and propaganda should be banned.
LIE
Petraeus met with and reported to several Dem members, and offered to meet with others, including Jack Murtha (D-Abscam) who refused and then lied about it on television
"They are ginning up statistics to show progress"
LIE
Watch the news lately? Only a moron would fail to see that the amount of violence, bombings, US casualties due to enemy action have dramatically declined in the last several months of the surge
You think the numbers are fabricated? PROVE IT LIAR
CY, its time for this lying piece of garbage to go. Argue in good faith all you want. Lies and propaganda should be banned.
Posted by: TMF at September 07, 2007 06:53 AM (KTgUG)
28
"Both the report and the testimony have been shown already to be flawed and compromised by domestic politic issues."
A report that hasn't even been partially leaked to the NYT or WaPo, and testimony that has yet to be uttered have "been shown already to be flawed?" And my Calculus students' quizzes, that they are going to take on Monday, are already mostly wrong....
A report that hasn't even been partially leaked to the NYT or WaPo, and testimony that has yet to be uttered have "been shown already to be flawed?" And my Calculus students' quizzes, that they are going to take on Monday, are already mostly wrong....
Posted by: notropis at September 07, 2007 07:27 AM (rWATM)
29
Notropis, one wonders what lefties like J will say if General Petraeus says that we can start a gradual drawdown of the troops. After all, they've already branded him a liar, so they can't very well take that statement as gospel without lots of verbal acrobatics.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 07, 2007 09:00 AM (viASe)
30
I should also point out that, given J's obvious ignorance about the text of the law in question, any reasonable person would probably take his opinions with a large grain of salt.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 07, 2007 09:01 AM (viASe)
New Major Offensive in Northern Iraq Underway: Media Caught Flat-Footed?
They're calling it, "Lightning Hammer II," and it seeks to build on the gains made in pushing al Qaeda out of Baquba and surrounding areas in Diyala Province.
I'd tell you more, but right now, there doesn't seem to be a lot more to tell. As of this particular moment, CNN seems to have the only account of this 26,000-man offensive in northern Iraq, and I'm unable to find any story related to a new Iraqi offensive on Google News. Now, it could very well be that there are reporters and photographers embedded with those units taking part in the offensive that simply haven't had time or opportunity to file reports, but it is a matter of record that the wire service and larger individual news organizations largely missed out on the start of Lightning Hammer I in Diyala Province, and once the operation was underway, they only entered the battlespace very briefly--some literally staying just hours--before helicoptering back to Baghdad. If America wonders why we get so little good news coming out of Iraq, they might want to consider that at least part of that reason is because news organizations aren't where the news is occuring. Update: CNN seems to be merely reporting highlights of the military press release:
About 14,000 Iraqi security forces stationed throughout Nineveh province and 12,000 U.S. soldiers are conducting the operation, which started Wednesday evening. The military said the operation "follows Lightning Hammer I ... to deny al Qaeda safe haven in the provinces" of Salaheddin, Nineveh, Diyala, and Kirkuk. The military said the original Operation Lightning Hammer -- August 13 to September 1 -- ousted militants from the Diyala River valley, northeast of Baquba, the capital of Diyala province. "Al Qaeda cells were driven from Baquba in Diyala due to Operation Arrowhead Ripper in June and July and then pursued in the Diyala River valley during Operation Lighting Hammer in August," Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning and Multinational Division-North.
I'll see if I can make contact with PAO covering this operation and provide more information as it becomes available. Update: I checked in with the Task Force Lightning PAO, and he told me that there are a total of 11 embedded journalists in Northern Iraq. A grand total of one is from a major wire service, and five of them are in Diyala. The remaining northern provinces of Ninewa, Salah Ad Din, and Kirkuk have a total of two embedded journalists each. How many of them are actually covering operations related to Operation Lightning Hammer II is unknown.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20070906-05
September 6, 2007 Operation Lightning Hammer II expands pursuit of al-Qaeda Multi-National
Division - North PAO TIKRIT, Iraq - Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition Forces continued
their relentless pursuit of al-Qaeda in northern Iraq by launching
Operation Lightning Hammer II, Wednesday evening. The operation, involving approximately 14,000 ISF, partnered
with more than 12,000 CF, is spearheaded by Soldiers from the 4th
Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, partnered with members of the
2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army Divisions, and Iraqi Police forces stationed
throughout Ninewa province. In addition to the thousands of Soldiers and their ISF
counterparts participating in Lightning Hammer II, attack helicopters,
close-air support, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles and tanks
compliment the combined effort. This operation follows Lightning Hammer
I in the series of offensives to deny al-Qaeda safe haven in the
provinces of Salah ad Din, Ninewa, Diyala and Kirkuk. Operation
Lightning Hammer I, from Aug. 13 to Sept. 1, succeeded in driving enemy
elements out of the Diyala River Valley, northeast of Baqouba. "Al-Qaeda cells were driven from Baqouba in Diyala due to
Operation Arrowhead Ripper in June and July and then pursued in the
Diyala River Valley during Operation Lighting Hammer in August," said
Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning and
Multinational Division-North. "Our main goal with Lightning Hammer II is
to continue to pursue and apply constant pressure to the terrorist cells
operating in MND-N, and destroy them where they attempt to hide." "Our combined forces' commitment to hunt al Qaeda and its
operatives remains as strong as ever," said Mixon. "We will not rest
until al Qaeda in Iraq is driven from northern Iraq, and Iraqi citizens
have a safe and secure homeland."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:59 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob, seems that the AP, Jamal Hussein, or even Scott Thomas may be on the job, but we'll just have to wait for their reports.
Posted by: CoRev at September 06, 2007 11:11 AM (0U8Ob)
2
Wow, you mean the OPSEC worked and the networks didn't get to broadcast the full battle plan the week prior to it kicking off?
Amazing.
Amazing.
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at September 06, 2007 12:11 PM (yiMNP)
3
Jeff, it is one thing to break operational security, but quite another to have such a shortage of media that you simply can't cover a third of the country.
There is a grand total of two embeds in Ninewa, two in Salah Ad Din, Two in Kirkuk, and five in Diyala... 11 in all of northern Iraq.
Of those, there is precisely 1 wire service employee from AP (in Diyala), and the rest belong to smaller media firms and individual news outlets.
This is pathetic.
There is a grand total of two embeds in Ninewa, two in Salah Ad Din, Two in Kirkuk, and five in Diyala... 11 in all of northern Iraq.
Of those, there is precisely 1 wire service employee from AP (in Diyala), and the rest belong to smaller media firms and individual news outlets.
This is pathetic.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 06, 2007 12:23 PM (ScOBm)
4
I agree with your sarcasm, Jeff. And I agree with your disdain, CY.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 06, 2007 07:12 PM (Wt5EU)
5
Given the way the majority of the media has treated the average soldier in the field, I don't doubt that reporters feel unwelcome at FOBs. The reporters are apparently much more at home in their Baghdad hotel rooms, where they can pat each other on the backs for their "bravery."
Posted by: C-C-G at September 06, 2007 08:44 PM (viASe)
September 05, 2007
AQ Bomb Plot Against American Targets in Germany Foiled
On CNN:
The article goes on to speculate that the attacks could have been planned to have occurred on September 11. The bombers were clearly attempting to build triacetone triperoxide (TATP) bombs, a favorite of terrorists that nevertheless often fails because of its instability. Occasionally it explodes during the production/bomb preparation steps, and other times, an improper mix leads to a bomb that either burns instead of detonating, or fails to ignite at all. Frankly, until we know more about them and learn about their amassed equipment and technical know-how, I'm going to be quite skeptical that they could have manufactured high-grade TATP in quantities sufficient to build successful bombs of the size this report suggests. I may very well be wrong, but after the failures of the second London bombers, and the Glasgow bombers, I have very little faith in the competence of the surviving al Qaeda bomb builders remaining in Pakistan and Afghanistan who train terrorists such as these. Update: I just contacted Yassin Musharbash, one of the two Spiegel reporters who have written the definitive post on this terrorist event thus far (h/t: Hot Air, which has an excellent round-up, as always). He has confirmed my earlier hunch that triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, was the specfic peroxide-based explosive that these suspected terrorists were planning to use. This was the same kind of explosive used successfully in the 7/7 London tube bombings, and then fizzled in similar attacks just two weeks later on 7/21. Pajamas Media is following the story as well.
Three terror suspects held in Germany planned to carry out "imminent" and "massive" bombs attacks on a U.S. air base and Frankfurt's international airport, according to prosecutors. The suspects, two Germans aged 22 and 29 and a 29-year-old Turk, received terrorist training in Pakistan and had close ties to al Qaeda, according to Jorg Ziercke, president of Germany's Federal Criminal Investigation Office. Ziercke said the group was united by a "hatred against American citizens" as it planned attacks against Frankfurt airport, a popular international travel hub, and Ramstein air base, a major transit point for the U.S. military into the Middle East and Central Asia. The group had amassed 680 kg (1,500 pounds) of hydrogen peroxide to make bombs, German federal prosecutor Monika Harms told reporters on Wednesday. Harms said the three suspects also planned to attack bars and restaurants popular with Americans. She said the planned attacks would have been among the biggest yet on German soil. Possible scenarios would have been car bombings used in simultaneous attacks. Officials said the hydrogen peroxide could have produced a bomb with the explosive power of 540 kg of TNT.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:26 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Its surprisingly easy to make explosives out of common household stuff. I wouldn't bet the farm (or he airbase, or the international airline hub) that they'd fail.
Posted by: Santiago at September 05, 2007 06:47 AM (euKEY)
2
The news said that two of the three were "Muslim converts". Any information on this? That would add a different dimension to the terror angle.
Posted by: David Caskey at September 05, 2007 07:14 AM (G5i3t)
3
Weren't the UK bombers (including the Glasgow attackers) intent upon making fuel air explosives, and not simply TATP explosives? They failed to get the right mix of explosives, fuel, and air loads to detonate properly.
Posted by: lawhawk at September 05, 2007 09:40 AM (a8MXW)
4
al Qaeda has lost much in the way of trained and experienced upper-echelon personnel in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, Afghanistan. Not only in bomb and materials (like the Ricin plot in the UK), but in basic COINTEL work that should serve as a mainstay of all levels of their main organization. And as they made their affiliate system to depend upon the best training to come from al Qaeda, itself, the ability to regenerate the skills from the immediate system, even if available, is time consuming.
With that said, their contacts with Hezbollah that has training organizations dispersed globally may require some rapproachment with them so as to send aQ folks through those camps. Places like Lebanon are well known, and Syria, but Bosnia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the Tri-Border Area of South America allows Hezbollah to have a difficult to track down and end training and financing system.
The agents that aQ trained in the mid to late 1990's are mostly gone and that includes the cadre that helped fight the Soviets. Waziristan is very difficult to get to and is forcing a reliance upon more local fighters, that may not be savvy enough to actually be inventive with their work. The Chechnya operation is in the deep freeze, due to the manpower drain of aQ into Iraq. Similarly their old camps in Kosovo and Albania are dedicated to getting a few recruits basic skills, but not much else. Abu Sayyaf and the Moros are in a dagger fight with the Philippine government and JI and other Pakistani groups are looking at Kashmir more than the West.
aQ can ill afford to take a training hiatus *now* and skilled operatives not coming back increases the risk of operations and lowers overall organizational effectiveness and skill levels. We forget that equipment is cheap, but training and keeping effective personnel is very, very expensive.
With that said, their contacts with Hezbollah that has training organizations dispersed globally may require some rapproachment with them so as to send aQ folks through those camps. Places like Lebanon are well known, and Syria, but Bosnia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the Tri-Border Area of South America allows Hezbollah to have a difficult to track down and end training and financing system.
The agents that aQ trained in the mid to late 1990's are mostly gone and that includes the cadre that helped fight the Soviets. Waziristan is very difficult to get to and is forcing a reliance upon more local fighters, that may not be savvy enough to actually be inventive with their work. The Chechnya operation is in the deep freeze, due to the manpower drain of aQ into Iraq. Similarly their old camps in Kosovo and Albania are dedicated to getting a few recruits basic skills, but not much else. Abu Sayyaf and the Moros are in a dagger fight with the Philippine government and JI and other Pakistani groups are looking at Kashmir more than the West.
aQ can ill afford to take a training hiatus *now* and skilled operatives not coming back increases the risk of operations and lowers overall organizational effectiveness and skill levels. We forget that equipment is cheap, but training and keeping effective personnel is very, very expensive.
Posted by: ajacksonian at September 05, 2007 10:01 AM (oy1lQ)
5
As ajacksonian said - training effective cadres and having them survive long enough to pass on their skills is difficult if the new troops keep getting killed. And while the internet is wonderful for passing on information to those who have the basics in a difficult and potentially dangerous subject, I would imagine that the internet is a poor way to pass on basic skills in this to the new recruit. Only training under the eye of a skilled trainer is going to be useful, to insure that bad habits are not picked up. A self-guided course has the risk that the recruit may skip some of the boring preliminary instruction and pass on quickly to the fun stuff. I don't know anything about making bombs, but I would speculate that getting it right everytime is a non-appeallable requirement. And this does not discount that the internet sites may be hacked to change some of the instructions just slightly - enough to make the bombmaker's career very short or make the product inert.
And other nations may not have quite the NYT qualms about intelligence matters and what is cricket and what isn't. The French, for example, come to mind as a nation that doesn't mind fighting dirty so long as a proper epigram is in readiness should the information ever get out.
To summarize: there is no substitute for actual training and experience in difficult technical matters, and bombmaking and operational planning are both technical matters that cannot be picked up on the fly after skimming some websites at work.
And other nations may not have quite the NYT qualms about intelligence matters and what is cricket and what isn't. The French, for example, come to mind as a nation that doesn't mind fighting dirty so long as a proper epigram is in readiness should the information ever get out.
To summarize: there is no substitute for actual training and experience in difficult technical matters, and bombmaking and operational planning are both technical matters that cannot be picked up on the fly after skimming some websites at work.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 05, 2007 04:39 PM (Wt5EU)
6
Thanks, Peter "my eyes glaze over" Glaser. A summary and a link or pasting of the website address would have done very well, thank you very much.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 05, 2007 06:33 PM (Wt5EU)
7
A terrorist plot foiled and it didn't even require invading and occupying a country in the Middle East. Almost seems impossible to imagine.
Posted by: The Voice of Reason at September 05, 2007 09:39 PM (K1Emm)
8
Peter, your link dump was excessive, and has been removed. Please keep comments relatively brief and easy to read, and if that isn't possible, please post links instead.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 05, 2007 10:31 PM (HcgFD)
9
Jacksonian, training is always an issue when your first order to a new recruit is, "go kill yourself and take as many of the enemy as you can with you." The Japanese learned this over 60 years ago. The Muslims still haven't.
But, why should we worry? The war on terror is just a bumper sticker. John Edwards said so.
But, why should we worry? The war on terror is just a bumper sticker. John Edwards said so.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 05, 2007 10:55 PM (viASe)
10
Watch Pakistan's role in this one - possibly more relevant given its connection to virtually all attacks apart from the Glasgow airport charade.
Posted by: Mary at September 06, 2007 04:46 AM (cuZEu)
September 04, 2007
There They Go Again
Over at Hot Air, Bryan has a nice catch this morning about UPI-alleged attack on a power-generating plant in southern Baghdad.
Bryan has a contact that works at the plant, and states it was not attacked when UPI ran the article, that they were not damaged nearly as bad as UPI states, and was only attacked two days later. Per Bryan's request, I contacted the Army PAO in that sector, and found out that there was indeed an attack that day, on a power substation in that sector:There is a huge difference, of course, between substations, which are small relay stations commonly found distributing power to adjoining residential and commercial districts here in the United States as elsewhere in the world, and power stations, where coal, other fuels, or nuclear power is used to generate energy in a much, much larger facility. Details, details.
The attack on the substation definitely happened, as did the attack on the fire truck. I just saw photos of the burned out building and fire engine. But, it is a small facility, and the article exaggerates the impact of the attack. Did people lose power as a result? Probably- those serviced in that immediate neighborhood. But, power is intermittent throughout Doura, so to insinuate that the loss of this station is the cause of a city-wide loss of electricity isn't exactly accurate either. It sounds like another example of one smaller event happening, but then being made into more than it actually was. The main Doura power plant is still operating per normal output.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:50 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Great post! Your story on the largely phony UPI story reminds me to ask whether you have ever heard from Scott Horton over at Harper's relative to what sure looked like another Beauchamp fantasy.
Posted by: Terry at September 04, 2007 01:23 PM (DMnkh)
2
Terry, Harper's and Horton have apparently decided that not answering my inquiries is their preferred course of action.
That, of course, doesn't stop anything, it just makes it take longer to find answers from other sources.
That, of course, doesn't stop anything, it just makes it take longer to find answers from other sources.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 04, 2007 01:37 PM (0BhZ5)
3
Your first version of this post said "This never happened."
Now, you find out that something did happen but you quibble about the definition of substations and power plants and you have the nerve to suggest that UPI is guilty of botching the story.
Seems to me no one has the whole story and its better for all of us to take some time to absorb all the facts as they come to light instead of panicking at the first rumor of this or that.
Now, you find out that something did happen but you quibble about the definition of substations and power plants and you have the nerve to suggest that UPI is guilty of botching the story.
Seems to me no one has the whole story and its better for all of us to take some time to absorb all the facts as they come to light instead of panicking at the first rumor of this or that.
Posted by: Spinsterina at September 04, 2007 03:34 PM (tiOPQ)
4
"you quibble about the definition of substations and power plants"
substation: http://education.jlab.org/sitetour/substation.l.jpg
power plant (in fact, the one in question): http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/photogallery/gallery_40/photo09.html
Note that the first merely transfers electrical power, while the second GENERATES electricity. Note, especially, the presence of smokestacks, in the second photo, and the absence of same in the first.
In my county we have dozens of substations, but not a single power plant. Several times a year, a substation is put out of commission by lightning or a wayward and unfortunate raccoon; this is not news. If a power plant were put out of commission, it would be.
Hardly a "quibble."
substation: http://education.jlab.org/sitetour/substation.l.jpg
power plant (in fact, the one in question): http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/photogallery/gallery_40/photo09.html
Note that the first merely transfers electrical power, while the second GENERATES electricity. Note, especially, the presence of smokestacks, in the second photo, and the absence of same in the first.
In my county we have dozens of substations, but not a single power plant. Several times a year, a substation is put out of commission by lightning or a wayward and unfortunate raccoon; this is not news. If a power plant were put out of commission, it would be.
Hardly a "quibble."
Posted by: notropis at September 04, 2007 06:56 PM (7hwNb)
5
but you quibble about the definition of substations and power plants
Huh? There is no quibbling possible. Substations don't generate power. Period. They are small and serve a neighborhood sized area. Period.
They're used to knock the 40Kv stuff down to lower voltage for local distribution.
Do you know anything at all about power systems? It doesn't sound like it.
Huh? There is no quibbling possible. Substations don't generate power. Period. They are small and serve a neighborhood sized area. Period.
They're used to knock the 40Kv stuff down to lower voltage for local distribution.
Do you know anything at all about power systems? It doesn't sound like it.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 04, 2007 09:16 PM (NiDeC)
Choose Your Preferred Narrative, but Quit Attacking the Troops
If you are a supporter of the on-going counter-insurgency plan in Iraq, you can find all sorts of news to support why we should stay in Iraq.
You could start with President Bush's al Asad photo-op yesterday, where the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Ambassador Crocker, and Commanding General Petraeus met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Presidnet Talabani, and Vice Presidents Medhi and al Hashemi. Critics point out that the meeting was a merely a six-hour stop and photo-op for the President, and as such, was a public relations stunt. That the brief visit was designed as a public relations tool is beyond doubt. The undeniable fact remains that al Anbar, a province deemed all but lost according to classified Marine Corps Intelligence reports leaked to the press just a year ago, has now become so quiet that our leaders and the leaders of Iraq knew that the base was safe enough for a public meeting, without any apparent fear of a rocket or mortar attack by insurgents, or of suicide attacks by terrorists, or of anti-aircraft missiles being fired at the two large jets bringing in the American delegation, or the helicopters that (I presume) brought in the Iraqi senior leadership. In addition to this public meeting of leaders in an area once deemed lost just a short time ago, U.S. casualties in Iraq have dropped in half at a time they were expected to actually rise, al Qaeda-aligned terrorists and insurgent groups have either turned, or become hounded and hunted in al Anbar, Diyala, and elsewhere. Some supporters are suggesting that what future history may regard as the turning point towards victory is either occurring, or may have already occurred. For war detractors in our political classes, in the media and on the activist left, the war was lost long ago, and every day merely means another American mother will lose her soldier-child in a lost cause. To them, the war possibility of a turn-around in Iraq is unthinkable, any apparent progress is an illusion, or merely a matter of temporary gains before an inevitable fall. Both sides are looking to make what they can of the much-anticipated "Petraeus Report" (which, asA simple look at the actual press releases from the PAO system immediately and conclusively debunked Greenwald's claim, but it has not stopped him, nor other critics, from attacking the credibility of the military, even as they studiously avoid almost every sympathetic media misstep. The New Republic ran a series of brutal fantasies concocted by a U.S. Army private as real without any attempt to fact check them, instigated a cover-up that purposefully concealed the identity of sources that they said supported the story, arguably deceived these same sources, and hid countering testimony collected from other experts, only to blame the military for stone-walling their investigation. In fact, the author of this fiction has the ability to answer media requests, and instead has thus far chosen not to take them. But minor media and bloggers aren't the only ones attacking our troops. Hollywood directors are releasing the first of a seriesanti-war films, and the vangard of this effort, Redacted, redacts reality to push an anti-soldier, anti-war political agenda. The leader of the United States Senate declared that the "surge" was lost before it even began, and declared in April that he would not believe any future news provided by General Petraeus that contradicted that, essentially assaulting General Petraeus' integrity. Later, John Murtha lied while claiming that the White House was using General Petraeus as a political prop, and criticized Petraeus for not meeting with Congress. Not only had General Petraeus met with Congress, he actually took time out of his schedule to brief Murtha and Pelosi privately. Both sides, right and left, have their own political agendas. Sympathizers in the blogosphere and in media organizations large and small bring their own biases to the table as they discuss war policy. That is understood, expected, and perfectly understandable. What is not understandable is why critics feel it is necessary to attack the troops as they attack the mission. They claim to be able to support the troops while critcizing the mission, but in practice, that is often not the case. When General Petreaus comes back to the United States to brief the President and Congress, he will not do so as a partisan. He promises that, “The Ambassador and I are going to give it to them straight and then allow the folks at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue make what clearly is a national decision.“ He will speak for the American military, as the Commanding General of our forces in Iraq. He will not speak as a Republican General, or a Democratic General, but as a General of the Army of the United States of America. He will provide the facts, and let us discuss, decipher, and no doubt, spin what he reports. Fine. Let us spin the data and the findings to support our political viewpoints. But please, let's do so without attacking the integrity of those who serve, which is a tactic becoming more common, and repulsive, as time goes by. Update:: corrected Matthew Sheffield's name in the text above.
All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | Comments (71) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Interesting article however you didn't mention the terrible increase in civilian deaths. 1800 last month alone.
Posted by: Archie1954 at September 04, 2007 12:04 PM (HMIcA)
2
that terrible increase was due to the 512 deaths due to the suicide bombing of Yazdi. This occurred outside of the zones targeted by the surge.
And, while these civilian deaths due to terrorism are awful, were we to withdraw just what would Al-Queda and Iranian Shia fanatics do?
face it, we are now fighting the same people who bombed the US, blew up Khobar Towers, etc., etc. Surrender and retreat are not options.
And, while these civilian deaths due to terrorism are awful, were we to withdraw just what would Al-Queda and Iranian Shia fanatics do?
face it, we are now fighting the same people who bombed the US, blew up Khobar Towers, etc., etc. Surrender and retreat are not options.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 04, 2007 12:56 PM (TzLpv)
3
Good post, Bob.
I linked it and added my thoughts about why the left has been so vicious in their attacks on the character of our troops.
Archie1954,
The August death toll was skewed by the August 14 attack on the Yazidi village. But for the 350 to 500 deaths from that event, the death toll would have decreased significantly in August. The 1,800 figure may be technically accurate, but statistically skewed by a single "outlier" event.
It is also worth noting that, at the time of that attack, tens of thousands of Shiites were marching through Sunni neighborhoods in a pilgrimage that saw no terrorist attacks and no deaths due to terrorist activity. The bad guys instead chose a village located near the Syrian border, in the middle-of-nowhere Kurdistan. They avoided attacking the pilgrimage because they couldn't have pulled it off; they attacked a village in the boonies because it was the only wad they had to shoot.
Still, the population of Iraq is about 24 million. A death toll of 1,800 represents an attrition rate of 0.0075%. That is an infinitesimally small number. Any significant event can skew small numbers in a big way.
I linked it and added my thoughts about why the left has been so vicious in their attacks on the character of our troops.
Archie1954,
The August death toll was skewed by the August 14 attack on the Yazidi village. But for the 350 to 500 deaths from that event, the death toll would have decreased significantly in August. The 1,800 figure may be technically accurate, but statistically skewed by a single "outlier" event.
It is also worth noting that, at the time of that attack, tens of thousands of Shiites were marching through Sunni neighborhoods in a pilgrimage that saw no terrorist attacks and no deaths due to terrorist activity. The bad guys instead chose a village located near the Syrian border, in the middle-of-nowhere Kurdistan. They avoided attacking the pilgrimage because they couldn't have pulled it off; they attacked a village in the boonies because it was the only wad they had to shoot.
Still, the population of Iraq is about 24 million. A death toll of 1,800 represents an attrition rate of 0.0075%. That is an infinitesimally small number. Any significant event can skew small numbers in a big way.
Posted by: Dave at September 04, 2007 01:04 PM (38EUg)
4
Re: "When General Petreaus comes back to the United States to brief the President and Congress, he will not do so as a partisan. He promises that, “The Ambassador and I are going to give it to them straight and then allow the folks at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue make what clearly is a national decision.“ "
I'll wait and see if the General's testimony is anything but a carbon copy of a Tony Snow news conference. If all I hear are identical talking points from the Rush Limbaugh Show, then we will all know that the General's script was written, not at the Pentagon, but in the White House.
I predict we will get nothing but the standard Administration line:
The Iraqi central government is a failure.
However.
It might work some day.
So.
Let's continue to run ot the clock to January 2009 so George W. Bush can get out of town while still claiming "we were on the road to victory when I was President".
And all the Conservatives answered, "Amen!"
I'll wait and see if the General's testimony is anything but a carbon copy of a Tony Snow news conference. If all I hear are identical talking points from the Rush Limbaugh Show, then we will all know that the General's script was written, not at the Pentagon, but in the White House.
I predict we will get nothing but the standard Administration line:
The Iraqi central government is a failure.
However.
It might work some day.
So.
Let's continue to run ot the clock to January 2009 so George W. Bush can get out of town while still claiming "we were on the road to victory when I was President".
And all the Conservatives answered, "Amen!"
Posted by: Philadelphia Steve at September 04, 2007 01:07 PM (IrTYC)
5
Upon winning the election in 2008, Steve urges the immediate firing of the upper military command, to be replaced w/ those more suitable to the DNC/Kossacks.
Posted by: Techie at September 04, 2007 01:13 PM (T+8Gr)
6
LOL @ Steve
If the General doesn't give a bad report, he must be a lying BooshChimpHitler Stooge.
Or part of the Boosh Cheney Halliburton junta.
Or, something.
If the General doesn't give a bad report, he must be a lying BooshChimpHitler Stooge.
Or part of the Boosh Cheney Halliburton junta.
Or, something.
Posted by: Dave at September 04, 2007 01:28 PM (38EUg)
7
But we already know the General didn't even write his own report. The White House did. So why should we expect anything different?
Posted by: MattM at September 04, 2007 01:40 PM (TqZrA)
8
MattM, do you have any proof at all to back your assertion?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 04, 2007 01:44 PM (0BhZ5)
9
Supporting the troops has always been there. Supporting the imbeciles IN CHARGE has been our complaint. Is that so difficult for simpletons to understand? The managers of the war are incompetent - the soldiers are heros. The soldiers have been asked to do an impossible task by a group of managers who never had the urge - or loyalty to their country - to wear a uniform. To me, that is really simple to grasp.
Posted by: Tom at September 04, 2007 02:08 PM (mtC8Q)
10
From Influence Peddler, quoting H.R. 2206:
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
(C) If the President’s assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.
Later in the legislation:
(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.—Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.
It's pretty clear to me who is supposed to be writing a report to the Congress, and when, and what the reports are supposed to contain.
If there is a belief that General Petraeus will have the White House prepare his testimony, then some evidence of that needs to be presented.
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
(C) If the President’s assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.
Later in the legislation:
(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.—Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.
It's pretty clear to me who is supposed to be writing a report to the Congress, and when, and what the reports are supposed to contain.
If there is a belief that General Petraeus will have the White House prepare his testimony, then some evidence of that needs to be presented.
Posted by: Dave at September 04, 2007 02:26 PM (38EUg)
11
There is no evidence that Petraeus will have GWB or the White House prepare his testimony. The moronic libs believe that because "they heard it on the internet somewhere". But it does give them a way of discrediting the report if it is positive.
Remember, the Democrats have invested everything in defeat. They will do anything and everything to make that happen.
Remember, the Democrats have invested everything in defeat. They will do anything and everything to make that happen.
Posted by: Steve at September 04, 2007 02:43 PM (qmI1J)
12
The August numbers may also include the 500 plus enemies killed by US forces that month. We had a very good month.
http://northshorejournal.org/LinkedImages/2007/09/simmins-surge.JPG
http://northshorejournal.org/LinkedImages/2007/09/simmins-surge.JPG
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at September 04, 2007 03:24 PM (HeNaU)
13
This is the same Patraeus who said the Iraqi army was standing up so we could soon stand down just before the 2004 US elections.
How did he lose his partisanship in 3 short years?
Just askin'.
How did he lose his partisanship in 3 short years?
Just askin'.
Posted by: Robert at September 04, 2007 03:38 PM (2Vgu3)
14
Remember, they see every American death as a Democrat victory.
Iraq, Katrina regardless of who's fault it is The Left rejoices when an American dies.
Iraq, Katrina regardless of who's fault it is The Left rejoices when an American dies.
Posted by: EvilDave at September 04, 2007 03:47 PM (Vmj9c)
15
The price of oil just took a spike up on news of expected storms in the Atlantic. What do you think will happen if Iran gets control of Iraq and continues on to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Anti-Semitism is rampant in Europe fueled by radical Islam and the rants of Amadinejad. Wake up you liberals before you lose the ability to make your inane points.
Posted by: Bill Dempsey at September 04, 2007 04:26 PM (sJKrh)
16
The painstaking work of truth is tedious to the simple mind.
Lies are easy shrift. Who wants to think everything through to a mature, if not 100% satisfactory conclusion? Who can know enough? Everybody's lying anyway. Right?
"Stop attacking the troops!" is well-provoked, but who, exactly, has the power to make the simple-minded reporter/person stop talking?
Might as well declare a war on drugs. Cuz if someone's buying it, someone's gonna sell it.
Lies are easy shrift. Who wants to think everything through to a mature, if not 100% satisfactory conclusion? Who can know enough? Everybody's lying anyway. Right?
"Stop attacking the troops!" is well-provoked, but who, exactly, has the power to make the simple-minded reporter/person stop talking?
Might as well declare a war on drugs. Cuz if someone's buying it, someone's gonna sell it.
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at September 04, 2007 04:42 PM (8F+iI)
17
January, 2007: "For a nation bitterly divided over Iraq, the one point of agreement seems to be that Lt. Gen. David Petraeus is the right commander for U.S. forces in Baghdad."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301570.html)
September, 2007:
Quite a different story, at least from the cut-and-run crowd.
"Support the troops who support what we believe!" seems to be the order of the day of the anti-war left. The "reality-based community" is anything but.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301570.html)
September, 2007:
Quite a different story, at least from the cut-and-run crowd.
"Support the troops who support what we believe!" seems to be the order of the day of the anti-war left. The "reality-based community" is anything but.
Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at September 04, 2007 04:47 PM (ppKzH)
18
"Remember, they see every American death as a Democrat victory.Iraq, Katrina regardless of who's fault it is The Left rejoices when an American dies."
That's a hilarious one. Because it was revealed today that Dick Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington once observed that the White House was just "one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court."
You can try and paint Democrats as anti-American. But it's your own side that's happy to kill Americans (both here and in Iraq) as long as it suits their political goals.
That's a hilarious one. Because it was revealed today that Dick Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington once observed that the White House was just "one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court."
You can try and paint Democrats as anti-American. But it's your own side that's happy to kill Americans (both here and in Iraq) as long as it suits their political goals.
Posted by: MattM at September 04, 2007 06:45 PM (TqZrA)
19
MattM, have you a source for the Addington quote, or did you simply pull it out of the first available bodily orifice?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 07:02 PM (viASe)
20
That's Matthew Sheffield
Not Matthew Sheppard.
Matthew Shepard (one "p") was the gay man beaten to death in 1998 in Wyoming.
Not Matthew Sheppard.
Matthew Shepard (one "p") was the gay man beaten to death in 1998 in Wyoming.
Posted by: DWPittelli at September 04, 2007 07:13 PM (9eCQU)
21
Here's your source: It's from a new book by Jack Goldsmith, a right-wing lawyer who was named by the Bush administration as the head of the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.
If you're interested in pre-ordering it, you can do it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Presidency-Judgment-Inside-Administration/dp/0393065502/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6396425-7646247?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188905584&sr=8-1
But I'm sure that's too reality-based for this crowd.
If you're interested in pre-ordering it, you can do it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Presidency-Judgment-Inside-Administration/dp/0393065502/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6396425-7646247?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188905584&sr=8-1
But I'm sure that's too reality-based for this crowd.
Posted by: MattM at September 04, 2007 07:13 PM (TqZrA)
22
There are no excerpts on the Amazon page you gave. Since the book is not released yet, you cannot have obtained the quote from reading the book except in the highly unlikely event that you are a professional book reviewer.
Please provide your primary source for the quote above. "Primary source," by the way, means "where you read the quote," not a site where the quote does not appear.
Please provide your primary source for the quote above. "Primary source," by the way, means "where you read the quote," not a site where the quote does not appear.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 07:19 PM (viASe)
23
Redacted was created by Hollywood types, but they can't make a movie without money. Redacted is funded by Marc Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks.
Posted by: Don at September 04, 2007 07:30 PM (mqsH/)
24
I can give you all the sources you want. The primary source is an excerpt that Goldsmith himself released during this interview with the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin
Posted by: MattM at September 04, 2007 07:31 PM (TqZrA)
25
""Primary source," by the way, means "where you read the quote," not a site where the quote does not appear."
That would be too reality based!
That would be too reality based!
Posted by: jdkchem at September 04, 2007 07:34 PM (cgn+g)
26
In case you don't want to read ALL the amazingly damming first-person accounts, the quote I referenced is on page 6.
Spin it all you like - Goldsmith is a hard-core right winger who fully believes in Bush's War on Terror and the War in Iraq. He thinks the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to war criminals. And he approved the illegal NSA wiretapping.
Spin it all you like - Goldsmith is a hard-core right winger who fully believes in Bush's War on Terror and the War in Iraq. He thinks the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to war criminals. And he approved the illegal NSA wiretapping.
Posted by: MattM at September 04, 2007 07:38 PM (NZ/aJ)
27
Thank you.
Here's some more illuminating quotes from the NY Times article, by the way:
Goldsmith has recounted how, from his first weeks on the job, he fought vigorously against an expansive view of executive power championed by officials in the White House
I admired and respected Addington, even when I thought his judgment was crazy.
There is also more than one description of disagreements between Goldsmith and Addington, giving weight to the theory that Goldsmith harbors a personal antipathy towards Addington, as well as towards President Bush.
And please, spare me the stereotypical meme about "he works for the man, he must like/respect/admire him." The person who has never worked for someone he dislikes has lived a blessed life.
In short, the book, at least from the review, appears to be the usual political hatchet-job. And you can ask George Tenet about how well those work out. He worked for Bush too, you know, and he wrote a book, and that book has been pretty much discredited by the weight of evidence.
Here's some more illuminating quotes from the NY Times article, by the way:
Goldsmith has recounted how, from his first weeks on the job, he fought vigorously against an expansive view of executive power championed by officials in the White House
I admired and respected Addington, even when I thought his judgment was crazy.
There is also more than one description of disagreements between Goldsmith and Addington, giving weight to the theory that Goldsmith harbors a personal antipathy towards Addington, as well as towards President Bush.
And please, spare me the stereotypical meme about "he works for the man, he must like/respect/admire him." The person who has never worked for someone he dislikes has lived a blessed life.
In short, the book, at least from the review, appears to be the usual political hatchet-job. And you can ask George Tenet about how well those work out. He worked for Bush too, you know, and he wrote a book, and that book has been pretty much discredited by the weight of evidence.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 07:43 PM (viASe)
Posted by: Synova at September 04, 2007 07:47 PM (8HO37)
29
The Geneva Conventions apply to lawful combatants. For the treatment of unlawful combatants, see André, John, Maj, British Army.
Posted by: Fox2! at September 04, 2007 08:29 PM (mS51q)
30
Geneva convention applies to
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; Al Queda-Baathist terrorst --NOPE
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; Al Queda-Baathist terrorst --NOPE
(c) That of carrying arms openly; Al Queda-Baathist terrorst --NOPE
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Al Queda-Baathist terrorst --NOPE
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; Al Queda-Baathist terrorst --NOPE
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; Al Queda-Baathist terrorst --NOPE
(c) That of carrying arms openly; Al Queda-Baathist terrorst --NOPE
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Al Queda-Baathist terrorst --NOPE
Posted by: red at September 04, 2007 08:32 PM (x3Y0C)
31
How did he lose his partisanship in 3 short years?
Just askin'.
Those comments came well before the al-Askiriya mosque bombing of February 2006. As a student of history, you understand what that event did for Al Qaeda and how it changed the conflict. Don't you?
Maybe the student stopped learning when the Washington Post declared Anbar was gone and Senator Reid said the war was lost.
When you find an answer you want, stop asking questions. huh?
Just askin'.
Those comments came well before the al-Askiriya mosque bombing of February 2006. As a student of history, you understand what that event did for Al Qaeda and how it changed the conflict. Don't you?
Maybe the student stopped learning when the Washington Post declared Anbar was gone and Senator Reid said the war was lost.
When you find an answer you want, stop asking questions. huh?
Posted by: Dave at September 04, 2007 08:46 PM (GF971)
32
Let's not change the subject - as much as you'd like to. You can write this off as a political hack job - but juse because someone disagrees with their boss or someone they work for, doesn't mean what they write isn't true.
The fact that he's donating all profits from the book to charity speak to the fact that he's not in this for cash. And as a Harvard Law professor, he's obviouly not in it for any new paying gig.
George "Slam Dunk" Tenet tried to shift blame from himself and got caught. That's why he did what he did. Goldsmith isn't being blamed for anything.
So what likely gain would he have to lie about all this? And if it's false, where's the administration's rebutal?
Your flippant dismissal is nothing but pure conjecture - seeing as you haven't read the book and all.
What it boils down to is an even stronger case that the neocons are in this for political reasons - Americans and American troops be dammed.
But of course, you'd never admit that - despite all the evidence to the contrary.
The fact that he's donating all profits from the book to charity speak to the fact that he's not in this for cash. And as a Harvard Law professor, he's obviouly not in it for any new paying gig.
George "Slam Dunk" Tenet tried to shift blame from himself and got caught. That's why he did what he did. Goldsmith isn't being blamed for anything.
So what likely gain would he have to lie about all this? And if it's false, where's the administration's rebutal?
Your flippant dismissal is nothing but pure conjecture - seeing as you haven't read the book and all.
What it boils down to is an even stronger case that the neocons are in this for political reasons - Americans and American troops be dammed.
But of course, you'd never admit that - despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: MatM at September 04, 2007 09:15 PM (pLDDh)
33
DePalma is a hack. He completely ruined The Black Dahlia. The pretentious little documentary about the killing that he stuck onto the DVD of that movie is laughable, no matter how gory. His fondness for such bloody fare makes me wonder if doing films like Redacted allows him to have his cake and eat it, too--in that he can satisfy his fondness for sadism even as he feigns outrage. Pervert actually means something, sometimes.
Posted by: clazy at September 04, 2007 09:55 PM (SI8Da)
34
A former Clinton adminstration official, who asked not to be named, has written a book that says MattM is a comment-hijacking troll.
The book has not been released yet, but you can take it from me, because [snif]that is what the[chuckle] New York Times [giggle]is reporting...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa!
Tenent? What does Tenent, or a previous WH staffer, have to do with The subject of this post? Oh, right, it doesn't, and here lies MattM's true motivation... fling a little poo and hope somebody reacts.
Go away little monkey, let the grown-ups talk now.
The book has not been released yet, but you can take it from me, because [snif]that is what the[chuckle] New York Times [giggle]is reporting...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa!
Tenent? What does Tenent, or a previous WH staffer, have to do with The subject of this post? Oh, right, it doesn't, and here lies MattM's true motivation... fling a little poo and hope somebody reacts.
Go away little monkey, let the grown-ups talk now.
Posted by: Dark Jethro at September 04, 2007 10:04 PM (qDxag)
35
Ah Dark Jetro, you're a caricature of yourself.
First, you pull the oh-so-tired conservative hack job of insulting the messenger when you have no response to the proof at hand. Nice one. I couldn't have written a more cliched response myself.
And second, absolutely everythying about your post is completely wrong. The staffer isn't "unnamed." It's Jack Goldsmith. I know that's a multi-syllabic name, which is tough for you, but stay with me. Second, it's not what the NY Times said. It's an excerpt (that means quote) from the book. And the comment about Tenent was in response to C-C-G's Tenent comment.
So maybe try reading the thread before you show your stupidity. (Assuming you can read.)
Now go away little monkey and let the grown-ups talk.
First, you pull the oh-so-tired conservative hack job of insulting the messenger when you have no response to the proof at hand. Nice one. I couldn't have written a more cliched response myself.
And second, absolutely everythying about your post is completely wrong. The staffer isn't "unnamed." It's Jack Goldsmith. I know that's a multi-syllabic name, which is tough for you, but stay with me. Second, it's not what the NY Times said. It's an excerpt (that means quote) from the book. And the comment about Tenent was in response to C-C-G's Tenent comment.
So maybe try reading the thread before you show your stupidity. (Assuming you can read.)
Now go away little monkey and let the grown-ups talk.
Posted by: MatM at September 04, 2007 10:53 PM (pLDDh)
36
Here's a concept: address the issues instead of attacking each other.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 04, 2007 10:58 PM (HcgFD)
37
Actually, I'd like to retract that last post for most of you. Confederate Yankke runs a decent blog here, and while I basically disagree with him nearly 100% of the time, he sticks to the issues, doesn't name call (like Dark Jathro just regrettably got me to stoop to), and stands by his viewpoint (which I respect).
We need more honest debate in this country on both sides of the aisle. And in the limited time I've been reading CY, that seems to be the case, specifically from him and some of his posters.
We need more honest debate in this country on both sides of the aisle. And in the limited time I've been reading CY, that seems to be the case, specifically from him and some of his posters.
Posted by: MatM at September 04, 2007 11:06 PM (pLDDh)
38
I have a hard time getting worked up over a stupid comment. I don't know the context. Everyone says dumb things now and again...I will bet every poster who has said that all muslims should die really is just voicing frustration...and that a member of the current administration has said something inpolitic and rather dumb doesn't really make much of a difference on the major issue of Iraq.
I could easily imagine getting mad and saying something comparable about the Dem candidates for President, but I certainly would be horrified if it were to come true.
So, as CY has encouraged all of us, let's talk about why SOME in opposition to the war feel it acceptable to smear our troops as part of that anti-war effort. Is it because they cannot argue against the fact that we, now, fight against agressors who DID attack the USA, both on our shores and off. Regardless of whether or not this conclusion of the first gulf war was called for, that particular war is over. We now are fighting jihadis and assorted Iranian puppets--both of whom are our enemies.
Or is it because the DePalma's cannot argue against the 100% certainty of a near-genocidal bloodbath in Iraq were we to leave. And while a Rwanda-class genocide would be a gold mine for movie makers, selling that future is tough.
I could easily imagine getting mad and saying something comparable about the Dem candidates for President, but I certainly would be horrified if it were to come true.
So, as CY has encouraged all of us, let's talk about why SOME in opposition to the war feel it acceptable to smear our troops as part of that anti-war effort. Is it because they cannot argue against the fact that we, now, fight against agressors who DID attack the USA, both on our shores and off. Regardless of whether or not this conclusion of the first gulf war was called for, that particular war is over. We now are fighting jihadis and assorted Iranian puppets--both of whom are our enemies.
Or is it because the DePalma's cannot argue against the 100% certainty of a near-genocidal bloodbath in Iraq were we to leave. And while a Rwanda-class genocide would be a gold mine for movie makers, selling that future is tough.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 04, 2007 11:27 PM (PT9cG)
39
MatM (or is it MattM?):
Your comment, "you haven't read the book" smacks of the pot calling the kettle black. The book hasn't been released yet, so you haven't read it either. Yet you throw out quotes from it and get all up in arms when I pull quotes from the same source you do.
And his "case," as you so flippantly put it, boils down to "he said, she said." Addington's comment wasn't recorded, and at this time there is no one corroborating Goldsmith's account. That brings it into the realm of hearsay, at least among fair-minded and intelligent people, and as such is hardly a firm foundation for accusations such as the one you are preferring against an entire political party.
In short, your quote could be nothing more than a figment of one man's imagination in order to blacken the name of someone with whom he disagrees. If you've read CY as long as you claim to, you should be aware that this sort of activity against the Bush administration is becoming relatively common... see CY's excellent articles on Beauchamp, Scott Thomas and Horton, Scott, for examples.
Your comment, "you haven't read the book" smacks of the pot calling the kettle black. The book hasn't been released yet, so you haven't read it either. Yet you throw out quotes from it and get all up in arms when I pull quotes from the same source you do.
And his "case," as you so flippantly put it, boils down to "he said, she said." Addington's comment wasn't recorded, and at this time there is no one corroborating Goldsmith's account. That brings it into the realm of hearsay, at least among fair-minded and intelligent people, and as such is hardly a firm foundation for accusations such as the one you are preferring against an entire political party.
In short, your quote could be nothing more than a figment of one man's imagination in order to blacken the name of someone with whom he disagrees. If you've read CY as long as you claim to, you should be aware that this sort of activity against the Bush administration is becoming relatively common... see CY's excellent articles on Beauchamp, Scott Thomas and Horton, Scott, for examples.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 11:46 PM (viASe)
40
Ah, but C-C-G, you were the one who first played the "You haven't read the book unless you're a professional book reader" card. I was just tossing that one back at ya.
And yes, this is a he-said/she-said situation. But my earlier point still stands - what does Goldsmith have to gain from attacking Addington? He's a conservative tried and true - so if he wanted to advance down that path, he certainly wouldn't be defaming some of the most poserful conservatives around. He's not doing it for the money - he's giving all proceeds away. And he's not doing it to save face - he hasn't been accused of any wrong doing.
It seems as if he was just doing it to, as you put it, "blacken the name of someone with whom he disagrees" he'd be doing himself more harm than good. (Unless he's suddenly angling for liberal backing, which, given his still-held beliefs about the war, the Geneva Convention, etc, is highly doubtful.)
So I don't see a logical reason why he would be lying.
And yes, this is a he-said/she-said situation. But my earlier point still stands - what does Goldsmith have to gain from attacking Addington? He's a conservative tried and true - so if he wanted to advance down that path, he certainly wouldn't be defaming some of the most poserful conservatives around. He's not doing it for the money - he's giving all proceeds away. And he's not doing it to save face - he hasn't been accused of any wrong doing.
It seems as if he was just doing it to, as you put it, "blacken the name of someone with whom he disagrees" he'd be doing himself more harm than good. (Unless he's suddenly angling for liberal backing, which, given his still-held beliefs about the war, the Geneva Convention, etc, is highly doubtful.)
So I don't see a logical reason why he would be lying.
Posted by: MatM at September 05, 2007 12:01 AM (pLDDh)
41
MatM, you can't be dense enough not to see a reason for Goldsmith to fabricate a story.
Human Nature 101: the desire to make someone with whom you have a personal or professional disagreement look bad.
Yes, he may be doing himself more harm than good. See Tenet, George. That sort of thing happens all the time when emotion trumps reason.
Even if, just for the sake of argument, we postulate that Addington did say you accuse him of, where does that get us? Are you going to take the statement of one person, in an administrative and not policy-making role in the White House, and make it emblematic of the entire Administration?
Howard Dean once said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." Note that there are multiple sources for that statement, of which I link only one above.
Can we, therefore, based on Dean's position as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, claim that the Democrats are the party of hatred? Would you permit me to take that one statement--which is back by far better evidence that Goldsmith's--and use it to characterize an entire party? I highly doubt it. Yet that is precisely what you are attempting to do with the Addington quote.
Your straw man is falling apart at the seams. I recommend you abandon it.
Human Nature 101: the desire to make someone with whom you have a personal or professional disagreement look bad.
Yes, he may be doing himself more harm than good. See Tenet, George. That sort of thing happens all the time when emotion trumps reason.
Even if, just for the sake of argument, we postulate that Addington did say you accuse him of, where does that get us? Are you going to take the statement of one person, in an administrative and not policy-making role in the White House, and make it emblematic of the entire Administration?
Howard Dean once said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." Note that there are multiple sources for that statement, of which I link only one above.
Can we, therefore, based on Dean's position as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, claim that the Democrats are the party of hatred? Would you permit me to take that one statement--which is back by far better evidence that Goldsmith's--and use it to characterize an entire party? I highly doubt it. Yet that is precisely what you are attempting to do with the Addington quote.
Your straw man is falling apart at the seams. I recommend you abandon it.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 05, 2007 08:46 AM (viASe)
42
Ugh, does this stuff really work with anyone? Don't you guys think we've moved past the point where claiming that criticizing the White House and it's water carriers is equivalent to criticizing "the troops"?
Enough Generals and others serving have been as critical of Patraeus and his already silly claims taht it just doesn't stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
The White House is writing his report, no doubt coaching him because with Bush and the fighting Keyboardists here...
IRAQ FOREVER!!!! YIPPEEE!!!!
Enough Generals and others serving have been as critical of Patraeus and his already silly claims taht it just doesn't stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
The White House is writing his report, no doubt coaching him because with Bush and the fighting Keyboardists here...
IRAQ FOREVER!!!! YIPPEEE!!!!
Posted by: Danjr0802 at September 05, 2007 09:08 AM (HI+XQ)
43
As one who works in (but not for... contractor) government, you guys saying the President is writing Gen. Petraeus's report have it exactly backwards to reality.
Stuff is written by people down the food chain, passed up, looked over (sometimes), approved, and "published" under the approved signature.
If there's congruence between what the WH and Petraeus say, it's because the WH is using the General's words, not the other way around.
But the General probably (most likely) is not writing his own words either. Some Lt. Colonel or Captain is probably doing the actual composition.
I'd bet a month's paycheck the General DOES read it though.
Stuff is written by people down the food chain, passed up, looked over (sometimes), approved, and "published" under the approved signature.
If there's congruence between what the WH and Petraeus say, it's because the WH is using the General's words, not the other way around.
But the General probably (most likely) is not writing his own words either. Some Lt. Colonel or Captain is probably doing the actual composition.
I'd bet a month's paycheck the General DOES read it though.
Posted by: Dan S at September 05, 2007 09:28 AM (A1bd0)
44
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/05/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at September 05, 2007 10:17 AM (gIAM9)
45
There seems to be a pattern here with vicious military haters such as MattM. For those old enough think back to Vietnam. At first the left blamed the civilian leaders like Johnson and Nixon but as time went by they began smearing the ones in charge on the ground, mostly the generals. As the war went on the left then began smearing the troops themselves. The exact same thing is happening in this war.
The longer the war takes the harder it is for the left to hide their true feelings about our military. How many times have we heard that our soldiers are uneducated dupes? Even though it's been proven they have a better education than society as a whole. It's at a point now where they can't hide their seething rage and irrational hatred for anyone in uniform.
The longer the war takes the harder it is for the left to hide their true feelings about our military. How many times have we heard that our soldiers are uneducated dupes? Even though it's been proven they have a better education than society as a whole. It's at a point now where they can't hide their seething rage and irrational hatred for anyone in uniform.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 05, 2007 11:39 AM (Lgw9b)
46
CI
As long as the troops can be thought of as "dupes", the left supports them. But as it becomes clear that the vast majority of the troops believe in the Iraq mission AND that these same troops are well-spoken, intelligent, educated, etc. THEN the troops themselves become targets for propaganda attacks.
Because, after all, winning power is the most important thing.
As long as the troops can be thought of as "dupes", the left supports them. But as it becomes clear that the vast majority of the troops believe in the Iraq mission AND that these same troops are well-spoken, intelligent, educated, etc. THEN the troops themselves become targets for propaganda attacks.
Because, after all, winning power is the most important thing.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 05, 2007 11:52 AM (8LvTp)
47
Damn that Bush and his expansive view of executive power!
I too was outraged at his illegal and fascistic plan to eavesdrop on terrorists plotting mass murder of women and children on American soil.
Bush is stomping the rights of innocent American citizens on a daily basis. This cannot stand.
This Goldsmith is one admirable character
I too was outraged at his illegal and fascistic plan to eavesdrop on terrorists plotting mass murder of women and children on American soil.
Bush is stomping the rights of innocent American citizens on a daily basis. This cannot stand.
This Goldsmith is one admirable character
Posted by: TMF at September 05, 2007 12:06 PM (KTgUG)
48
That's a hilarious one. Because it was revealed today that Dick Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington once observed that the White House was just "one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court."
Okay, I really have to ask, because I'm honestly curious: How does the quote above indicate in any way that Addington would be "happy to kill Americans (both here and in Iraq) as long as it suits [his] political goals?"
A quick reading of the linked NYT piece makes it pretty clear that Addington considered FISA, Congress, and many in Justice to be obstacles to waging effective war against al Qaeda. He thought, in fact, that they would cost American lives.
His quote isn't a celebration that soon terrorist actions would make his job easier, but a cyncial observation that the country was one major terror attack away from sweeping aside what he considered obnoxious obstacles to preventing those attacks.
That I think he was wrong about the value of the rule of law and civil liberties doesn't give me the right to ascribe false motives to him.
And while we shouldn't impugn leftists' motives without cause either, I have observed a hell of a lot of gloating about American casualties from the antiwar types and a hell of a lot of cynical use of casualty figures from certain members of Congress.
Okay, I really have to ask, because I'm honestly curious: How does the quote above indicate in any way that Addington would be "happy to kill Americans (both here and in Iraq) as long as it suits [his] political goals?"
A quick reading of the linked NYT piece makes it pretty clear that Addington considered FISA, Congress, and many in Justice to be obstacles to waging effective war against al Qaeda. He thought, in fact, that they would cost American lives.
His quote isn't a celebration that soon terrorist actions would make his job easier, but a cyncial observation that the country was one major terror attack away from sweeping aside what he considered obnoxious obstacles to preventing those attacks.
That I think he was wrong about the value of the rule of law and civil liberties doesn't give me the right to ascribe false motives to him.
And while we shouldn't impugn leftists' motives without cause either, I have observed a hell of a lot of gloating about American casualties from the antiwar types and a hell of a lot of cynical use of casualty figures from certain members of Congress.
Posted by: Angry Overeducated Catholic at September 05, 2007 12:19 PM (f3DyB)
49
Great Post, I agree entirely.
Specifically, I would add the vitriolic comments of late regarding the General. It's incredible to me that "progressives" claim to not bash the military when they slander the #1 soldier in Iraq on a daily basis.
Whether it's accusing him of falsifying the bios of Congressmen visiting Iraq that were handed out to the troops, or that he's lying about his numbers, or that he singlehandedly had the NIE change its report in some underhanded way to make the surge look better.
DailyKos, CarpetBagger and Think Progress are all about assassinating Petraeus' character.
And why is that?
Because the success of his surge will cost the Democrats talking points.
Specifically, I would add the vitriolic comments of late regarding the General. It's incredible to me that "progressives" claim to not bash the military when they slander the #1 soldier in Iraq on a daily basis.
Whether it's accusing him of falsifying the bios of Congressmen visiting Iraq that were handed out to the troops, or that he's lying about his numbers, or that he singlehandedly had the NIE change its report in some underhanded way to make the surge look better.
DailyKos, CarpetBagger and Think Progress are all about assassinating Petraeus' character.
And why is that?
Because the success of his surge will cost the Democrats talking points.
Posted by: N. Lihach at September 05, 2007 04:19 PM (j0TCV)
50
Let's remember that NONE of the Joint Chiefs stood up to Bush Shinseki alone tried to speak reason and he got fired.
Posted by: John Ryan at September 06, 2007 08:07 PM (TcoRJ)
51
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, John.
Shinseki said 100,000 more troops. Petraeus is doing the job with 20,000 additional troops--even Democrats say so.
And you call Shinseki's idea "reason"? That in and of itself shows your lack of intellectual prowess.
Shinseki said 100,000 more troops. Petraeus is doing the job with 20,000 additional troops--even Democrats say so.
And you call Shinseki's idea "reason"? That in and of itself shows your lack of intellectual prowess.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 11:04 AM (viASe)
September 02, 2007
The Truther Behind the Traitor
Former Hollywood agent, Pat Dollard gets to the bottom line.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:57 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
At 11:15 (CST) the link to Pat Dollard's column produces this error:
Error 404. Page Not Found.
Whoops. It appears this page no longer exists or has been moved.
Error 404. Page Not Found.
Whoops. It appears this page no longer exists or has been moved.
Posted by: John Pennylegion at September 03, 2007 11:21 AM (SnRTM)
2
Mash here for the correct link.
Posted by: Dave at September 03, 2007 11:44 AM (/AAA6)
3
Pat's got some sort of URL issues... I wonder if the Drudge link yesterday gave him issues, as I'm now on my third link for this post
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 03, 2007 11:47 AM (HcgFD)
4
You can access the story on Jeff Rense`s website
http://www.rense.com/general78/we.htm
http://www.rense.com/general78/we.htm
Posted by: Pat at September 04, 2007 09:12 AM (qsKdJ)
I Love the Smell of Daily Kos in the Morning
It smells like... well, you know what it smells like if you've ever been on a cattle ranch:
By all means, please go over and read Maccabee's post. When you do, see if you can spot what appears to be wrong with the story, and then check your answers against mine. Who knows? You might just catch a few things I've missed.
I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth. I asked her why she is telling me this. Her answer was really amazing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:31 PM | Comments (91) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This story has so many holes in it that Beauchamp is jealous.
Check on what it takes to be an LSO and get back to me.
Check on what it takes to be an LSO and get back to me.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 02:50 PM (1aM/I)
2
Oh and find me anywhere but a super carrier you can land an F-18 on.
She is bogus.
There is no arresting gear or catapult on where she had to come from.
Sooooooo Bogus an id, even if the rest of the story is gospel.
She is bogus.
There is no arresting gear or catapult on where she had to come from.
Sooooooo Bogus an id, even if the rest of the story is gospel.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 02:52 PM (1aM/I)
3
"...and an unblemished combat record."
"She" has a combat record?
In the United States Marine Corps?
"She" has a combat record?
In the United States Marine Corps?
Posted by: Dave at September 02, 2007 02:53 PM (/AAA6)
4
I had my doubts about Beauchamp's story when that first broke out, but Maccabee's correspondent is playing in my sand box. You're right, s/he is wrong in so many ways. Much more here if you're curious..
Posted by: lex at September 02, 2007 02:58 PM (+FbEw)
5
I don't mean this as any denigration of our brave and loyal Marines, but during my husband's 26 year Navy career, Marines on a ship were considered more or less cargo, since the ships were to transport them, with their equipment, to whatever location where Marines were needed for their special talents.
I did a big "what?" on the eating in the galley bit. Even I know that officers don't eat in the kitchen. When my husband was a Master Chief and I would have dinner with him onboard, we ate in the Chief's Mess. When he became a Warrant Officer, we ate in the Wardroom and were served by stewards. I used to be amazed at the amount of fine china and sterling silver that is sailing around on the oceans on U.S. ships, although I recall being told that all that gets packed away and even the paneling is removed when a ship goes to war. That I never saw.
Also, it was my experience that it was your Detailer in Washington who held the power to transfer you to a new billet. You would call him and find out what was available for your rate or rank and expertise and you could voice a preference, but that did not always mean you would get what you wanted.
I did a big "what?" on the eating in the galley bit. Even I know that officers don't eat in the kitchen. When my husband was a Master Chief and I would have dinner with him onboard, we ate in the Chief's Mess. When he became a Warrant Officer, we ate in the Wardroom and were served by stewards. I used to be amazed at the amount of fine china and sterling silver that is sailing around on the oceans on U.S. ships, although I recall being told that all that gets packed away and even the paneling is removed when a ship goes to war. That I never saw.
Also, it was my experience that it was your Detailer in Washington who held the power to transfer you to a new billet. You would call him and find out what was available for your rate or rank and expertise and you could voice a preference, but that did not always mean you would get what you wanted.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 03:31 PM (hGL+y)
6
Follow up on the link Lex provided and look at the comments over at MacRanger's place.
This is someone who is throwing out pretty words about Navy terms (many of which don't apply to deployed carriers) and it all just smells pure plain bogus from the git go.
All that they needed to add was "this is a no sh***er to put it in context.
This is someone who is throwing out pretty words about Navy terms (many of which don't apply to deployed carriers) and it all just smells pure plain bogus from the git go.
All that they needed to add was "this is a no sh***er to put it in context.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 03:52 PM (1aM/I)
7
Not to defend Mr Malignant Narcissist himself, but apparently Maccabbee's diary is a little too wacky even for Markos:
Don't believe everything you read on the internets
Don't believe everything you read on the internets
Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 02, 2007 03:57 PM (OdRCs)
8
My guess is the Kos diarist stepped out to far and it may be the last we will see of him.
This story just has so many holes I could turn a carrier around in it and don't even ask just how much of a hole in the ocean that takes.
This story just has so many holes I could turn a carrier around in it and don't even ask just how much of a hole in the ocean that takes.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:12 PM (1aM/I)
9
Someone can actually boil the entire foreign policy of the deployment to Kosovo down to a single sentence? And not one of these 500 word, run-on monstrosities...a clear and decisive sentence on the mission in Kosovo?
If it was so clear and decisive, then why don't they have a constitution, elections and are self-governing by now? Because if it is so damned clear, then why hasn't anyone talked about it? Could be a useful thing this concept of what the actual mission was supposed to achieve in Kosovo. I know that I didn't hear it at the time, that's for sure. Still haven't, come to think of it... unless it was a planned failure.
If it was so clear and decisive, then why don't they have a constitution, elections and are self-governing by now? Because if it is so damned clear, then why hasn't anyone talked about it? Could be a useful thing this concept of what the actual mission was supposed to achieve in Kosovo. I know that I didn't hear it at the time, that's for sure. Still haven't, come to think of it... unless it was a planned failure.
Posted by: ajacksonian at September 02, 2007 04:14 PM (oy1lQ)
10
Ok
Next we will hear how we modified our old Trident subs to tube load and launch F-117 or F-22's from tube 6.
I gotta go get another beer , I'll be back.
This is so much fun.
Next we will hear how we modified our old Trident subs to tube load and launch F-117 or F-22's from tube 6.
I gotta go get another beer , I'll be back.
This is so much fun.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:17 PM (1aM/I)
11
If you look via the search engines there is only one hit on a female LSO and she is on a ship that mostly support choppers and she was enlisted not commissioned and was a prior command master chief.
Which means she was pure Navy all the way.
Don't get me wrong, when I was in the Navy Nuke program way back when ALL people in the program were personally interviewed by Adm Rickover we had an ET Master Chief on my boat who was a conversion from the Marines.
I did 4 years on the bird farms and spent many hours on "vultures row" and did a twist for a year in the safety department including working the decks during flight ops.
From first person experience this whole story is a bunch of stuff thrown up that ties into that story on the web right now of the 1200 target strike being report over in jolly old England.
Which means she was pure Navy all the way.
Don't get me wrong, when I was in the Navy Nuke program way back when ALL people in the program were personally interviewed by Adm Rickover we had an ET Master Chief on my boat who was a conversion from the Marines.
I did 4 years on the bird farms and spent many hours on "vultures row" and did a twist for a year in the safety department including working the decks during flight ops.
From first person experience this whole story is a bunch of stuff thrown up that ties into that story on the web right now of the 1200 target strike being report over in jolly old England.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:29 PM (1aM/I)
12
I am surprised the post is still there on Kos Land and now has about 1300 plus comments.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:38 PM (1aM/I)
13
What I find most amazing is there is not a single poster in the comment section that has even the minimum knowledge to call bs on the original diary.
All the discussion is about the politics of the situation and none of the technical wrongness.
I am waiting for the original diarist to come out and say it was all satire and he fished everyone.
All the discussion is about the politics of the situation and none of the technical wrongness.
I am waiting for the original diarist to come out and say it was all satire and he fished everyone.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:44 PM (1aM/I)
14
A Command Master Chief would never talk like this. I know, I was married to mine and he served in that capacity in 3 separate commands. Although, as Command Master Chief, she would have more access and probably spend much of her time with the XO as the liaison between command and crew.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 04:56 PM (hGL+y)
15
Oh this is good We have commentors on the Kos post quoting Truthout.org for specs on the performance of Iranian missles.
Subsonic? Oh no, Iran can get Mach 2.3 out of (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: farleftcoast, bluewolverine
its Sunburn missiles (purchased from Russia).
"Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them."
http://www.truthout.org/...
The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards.
by Last Best Chance on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:22:44 PM PDT
Oh this is good We have commentors on the Kos post quoting Truthout.org for specs on the performance of Iranian missles.
Subsonic? Oh no, Iran can get Mach 2.3 out of (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: farleftcoast, bluewolverine
its Sunburn missiles (purchased from Russia).
"Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them."
http://www.truthout.org/...
The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards.
by Last Best Chance on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:22:44 PM PDT
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:57 PM (1aM/I)
16
An afterthought, the Command Master Chief knows all, whether scuttlebutt or actual fact.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 05:03 PM (hGL+y)
17
Note it takes by their own link five missile hits to do in a 20k ton ship.
Care to guess the displacement of a Nimitz class carrier and then beyond that guess how far you have to punch through to even get to the ballistic bulkheads.
Sure you can do a bunch of cosmetic damage but look at the warhead size on a Sunburn and say, what was that a flea ala Bill Cosby.
Care to guess the displacement of a Nimitz class carrier and then beyond that guess how far you have to punch through to even get to the ballistic bulkheads.
Sure you can do a bunch of cosmetic damage but look at the warhead size on a Sunburn and say, what was that a flea ala Bill Cosby.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:04 PM (1aM/I)
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:06 PM (1aM/I)
19
Shsssshhh! Don't tell a Command Master Chief he isn't God, Yardbird. :0
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 05:07 PM (hGL+y)
20
Ok here we have another streetcar submarine admiral who went to test depth during his commute in SanFran
It has a modern, upgradable (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: mrblifil, DWG
nav system, it is not state of the art guidance, but is considered reliable.
The Soviets designed it SPECIFICALLY to attack the US Navy Aegis system. Iran just fired 1000 cruise missiles, you are a US Navy commander, you have 2 minutes to figure out which of the 1000 targets, are the 10 sunburns.
You have 45 seconds for any jets in the air to engage.
You have a bit more than one minute to shoot any old sub sonic missiles you have.... at a mach 3 to 4 target.
You have 3 to 5 seconds from when the Phalanx gun fires and the sunburn impacts your air craft carrier, if the Phalanx misses.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
by Roger Fox on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:42:43 PM PDT
Ok here we have another streetcar submarine admiral who went to test depth during his commute in SanFran
It has a modern, upgradable (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: mrblifil, DWG
nav system, it is not state of the art guidance, but is considered reliable.
The Soviets designed it SPECIFICALLY to attack the US Navy Aegis system. Iran just fired 1000 cruise missiles, you are a US Navy commander, you have 2 minutes to figure out which of the 1000 targets, are the 10 sunburns.
You have 45 seconds for any jets in the air to engage.
You have a bit more than one minute to shoot any old sub sonic missiles you have.... at a mach 3 to 4 target.
You have 3 to 5 seconds from when the Phalanx gun fires and the sunburn impacts your air craft carrier, if the Phalanx misses.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
by Roger Fox on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:42:43 PM PDT
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:17 PM (1aM/I)
21
Of Course, I am going to assume that the rate would determine how much in the know a Command Master Chief would be. My husband was an HT/Repair Officer and was pretty much in on all facets of the ship's mission. He was also a master cumshaw artist, which made him a very valuable member to the command, especially when it came to repair. It pays in kudos from your bosses to be a skilled junkyard dog.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 05:18 PM (hGL+y)
22
Shsssshhh! Don't tell a Command Master Chief he isn't God, Yardbird. :0
Posted by: Sara at September 2, 2007 05:07 PM
Well Sara I guess that makes you a goddess.
Personally I'm good with that since I have seen pictures of you, and yes you clean up nice.
Shsssshhh! Don't tell a Command Master Chief he isn't God, Yardbird. :0
Posted by: Sara at September 2, 2007 05:07 PM
Well Sara I guess that makes you a goddess.
Personally I'm good with that since I have seen pictures of you, and yes you clean up nice.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:20 PM (1aM/I)
23
One last thing and then I'm off to lie down and try to ignore how bad my head hurts and my nose is running from a bad cold.
She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.
Why is this news? I would expect that these types of details were all worked out and incorporated into any larger plan long before the ship ever sailed from its homeport.
She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.
Why is this news? I would expect that these types of details were all worked out and incorporated into any larger plan long before the ship ever sailed from its homeport.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 05:27 PM (hGL+y)
24
Sara
How can you have a cold in 110 degree temps?
A heat rash maybe, hot flashes (oops you are beyond that) or dehydration , but a cold.
Suggestion more Tequila.
Take as much as necessary and nudge me in the morning.
How can you have a cold in 110 degree temps?
A heat rash maybe, hot flashes (oops you are beyond that) or dehydration , but a cold.
Suggestion more Tequila.
Take as much as necessary and nudge me in the morning.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:32 PM (1aM/I)
25
Ok
I have taken the time an waded through all the comments over at Kos Land.
Not one called bs on the technicals of the post.
Not even a guess or a maybe.
The only downside they did was telling the poster he had to fake info about his source to protect her.
OKKKKKK.
Got that.
I have taken the time an waded through all the comments over at Kos Land.
Not one called bs on the technicals of the post.
Not even a guess or a maybe.
The only downside they did was telling the poster he had to fake info about his source to protect her.
OKKKKKK.
Got that.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 06:04 PM (1aM/I)
26
Sara
That was over the top by me and wrong , too much beer out by the grill working with the laptop.
My bad and I did wrong.
PS I know you are a quality lady.
That was over the top by me and wrong , too much beer out by the grill working with the laptop.
My bad and I did wrong.
PS I know you are a quality lady.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 06:09 PM (1aM/I)
27
I'm not sure what you are referring to YardBird, but I can assure no offense was taken. This cold started about 2 weeks ago, sick as a dog, then I got better and began to feel good again. Today it flared back up, worse than the first time around. I think it is because I live with a couple of polar bears and coming in from 110-113 degrees outside is like going from the equator to Antarctica in the time it takes to open the door.
I probably should have started with your suggestion of the Tequila, but I'm woozy on Benadryl right now.
Summer colds suck!
I probably should have started with your suggestion of the Tequila, but I'm woozy on Benadryl right now.
Summer colds suck!
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 06:34 PM (hGL+y)
28
Ralph Peters reported this: http://tinyurl.com/2mdej8
That take-no-prisoners humor was on display in the Fallujah area of operations. As I walked into a headquarters shack, a poster on the front door made me do a cartoon double-take. To appreciate the beauty of it, you just have to understand one military term, "OPSEC," or operations security - the protection of any tidbit of information that might be of value to an enemy.
On the poster, a frightened kitten bounds across a field of wildflowers straight toward the viewer, as if about to leap into your arms for protection. Fanged gingerbread monsters are in hot pursuit. The main caption:
"Every time you break OPSEC, God kills a kitten."
At the bottom, flanked by twin photos of beseeching kittens, the poster begged: "Please, think of the kittens."
BS doesn't kill kittens OPSEC leaks do, so it pretty obvious that NO KITTENS DIED as result of this "leak"
That take-no-prisoners humor was on display in the Fallujah area of operations. As I walked into a headquarters shack, a poster on the front door made me do a cartoon double-take. To appreciate the beauty of it, you just have to understand one military term, "OPSEC," or operations security - the protection of any tidbit of information that might be of value to an enemy.
On the poster, a frightened kitten bounds across a field of wildflowers straight toward the viewer, as if about to leap into your arms for protection. Fanged gingerbread monsters are in hot pursuit. The main caption:
"Every time you break OPSEC, God kills a kitten."
At the bottom, flanked by twin photos of beseeching kittens, the poster begged: "Please, think of the kittens."
BS doesn't kill kittens OPSEC leaks do, so it pretty obvious that NO KITTENS DIED as result of this "leak"
Posted by: tmitsss at September 02, 2007 07:15 PM (/WmPm)
29
Neptunus Lex does a military takedown on this story.
"It’s not that there’s any one thing wrong in the post, which purports to tell the inside story of an upcoming US naval attack on Iran, but rather the accumulation of many, many little things that aren’t quite right:"
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/02/hoisting-the-flag/
"It’s not that there’s any one thing wrong in the post, which purports to tell the inside story of an upcoming US naval attack on Iran, but rather the accumulation of many, many little things that aren’t quite right:"
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/02/hoisting-the-flag/
Posted by: Nobody at September 02, 2007 07:50 PM (3H6in)
30
Looks like Kos finally wizened up and "disappeared" the thread.
"Sorry. I can't seem to find that story"
Gosh, I love the tolerance of the left.
"Sorry. I can't seem to find that story"
Gosh, I love the tolerance of the left.
Posted by: TomB at September 02, 2007 08:37 PM (2AkLB)
31
What I find most amazing is there is not a single poster in the comment section that has even the minimum knowledge to call bs on the original diary.
All the discussion is about the politics of the situation and none of the technical wrongness.
This is classic, baby: mock the people discussing the actual issue of a possible invasion of Iran (trial balloons for which have been floated by the Administration for a long time, of course) and spend your time discussing the minutiae of weapons systems. When you're done you can climb into your camouflage pajamas and play with your GI Joes. Maybe your mom will let you build a fort in the living room tonight!
What I find most amazing is there is not a single poster in the comment section that has even the minimum knowledge to call bs on the original diary.
All the discussion is about the politics of the situation and none of the technical wrongness.
This is classic, baby: mock the people discussing the actual issue of a possible invasion of Iran (trial balloons for which have been floated by the Administration for a long time, of course) and spend your time discussing the minutiae of weapons systems. When you're done you can climb into your camouflage pajamas and play with your GI Joes. Maybe your mom will let you build a fort in the living room tonight!
Posted by: nunaim at September 02, 2007 08:41 PM (0K/xd)
32
The story has been deleted.
"Sorry. I can't seem to find that story."
I just love how they always seem to disappear....
"Sorry. I can't seem to find that story."
I just love how they always seem to disappear....
Posted by: Cargosquid at September 02, 2007 08:49 PM (YZKzR)
33
This is classic, baby: mock the people discussing the actual issue of a possible invasion of Iran (trial balloons for which have been floated by the Administration for a long time, of course) and spend your time discussing the minutiae of weapons systems.
Ah yes, we finally have the first "fake but accurate" post.
If that poster felt the subject was so cut-and-dried, why did he have to make up so much?
And if the subject is such a slam dunk, why did Kos delete it?
Remember people, THEY are the "reality-based community".
Ah yes, we finally have the first "fake but accurate" post.
If that poster felt the subject was so cut-and-dried, why did he have to make up so much?
And if the subject is such a slam dunk, why did Kos delete it?
Remember people, THEY are the "reality-based community".
Posted by: TomB at September 02, 2007 08:57 PM (2AkLB)
34
The story has been deleted.
No, no, no -- that story was never there. Its shoes may be showing at the bottom of the photo, but I assure you the story never existed.
Maybe this would make a nice topic for De Palma's "Redacted II - the moonbats that never were"
No, no, no -- that story was never there. Its shoes may be showing at the bottom of the photo, but I assure you the story never existed.
Maybe this would make a nice topic for De Palma's "Redacted II - the moonbats that never were"
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 02, 2007 09:01 PM (NiDeC)
35
Hilarious that a bunch of the commenters automatically assumed the diarist was a Rove/Cheney/Israeli plant inserted on the site to "discredit" the Kos brand. Why does the brand need any more discrediting would be the question I would be asking? Has the left gotten anything correct on Iran since Sy Hersh started predicting our invasion three or four years ago. He's like the Jason Leopold of the Iran invasion, but the moonbats still eat it up.
We don't care if we were fooled, it's a story worth talking about. Yup, fake but accurate. What's that term again, confirmation bias. Kos hit it on the head in his warning to his minions on this one.
We don't care if we were fooled, it's a story worth talking about. Yup, fake but accurate. What's that term again, confirmation bias. Kos hit it on the head in his warning to his minions on this one.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 02, 2007 09:08 PM (0pZel)
36
FYI,
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
September 2, 2007
Sarah Baxter, Washington
From The Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
September 2, 2007
Sarah Baxter, Washington
From The Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Posted by: Steve J. at September 02, 2007 09:57 PM (t5JPa)
37
spend your time discussing the minutiae of weapons systems.
Heh - well, since the basis of the "story" was on the " minutiae of weapons systems" it's no ones fault but Kos kids, they couldn't spot false "minutiae" even if were written in crayon. Can't help that the jokes on you Num.
Heh - well, since the basis of the "story" was on the " minutiae of weapons systems" it's no ones fault but Kos kids, they couldn't spot false "minutiae" even if were written in crayon. Can't help that the jokes on you Num.
Posted by: Peach at September 02, 2007 10:18 PM (0Dt9v)
38
Steve J. - Tell us something nobody has heard. What's Sy Hersh's latest super duper secret scoop on our Iran invasion? He's da man, right! Have you heard about Peter Paul's litigation against Hilary? How come the media doesn't write about that?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 02, 2007 10:21 PM (0pZel)
39
Steve J, the military also has plans to wipe out Sweden, Canada, Portugal, and every other country on the planet. Planning for any enemy, and knowing their strengths and weaknesses, is what the military does.
Do we have perhaps dozens of up-to-date plans on how to carry out attacks of varying types and intensity against Iran? I certainly hope so. Once again, that is what they do, and this kind of planning is what we want them to do.
You don't see any argument here with the media stories reporting this all-too-obvious truth. What we're hammering is yet another fabulist.
Do we have perhaps dozens of up-to-date plans on how to carry out attacks of varying types and intensity against Iran? I certainly hope so. Once again, that is what they do, and this kind of planning is what we want them to do.
You don't see any argument here with the media stories reporting this all-too-obvious truth. What we're hammering is yet another fabulist.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 02, 2007 10:28 PM (HcgFD)
40
CONFED -
The interesting thing (I think) about the London Times article is that it's based on neo-con sources, like Kimberly Kagan.
The interesting thing (I think) about the London Times article is that it's based on neo-con sources, like Kimberly Kagan.
Posted by: Steve J. at September 02, 2007 10:30 PM (t5JPa)
41
You can find a spirited defense of the much-maligned Maccabee here.
Posted by: Jacob Freeze at September 02, 2007 11:18 PM (5pr/S)
42
Here is my favorite comment from the Kos thread (from Fish Out of Water:
"Kos insulted us all by calling us gullible for our recs. I gave it a rec because it was a good story not because I believed it was true."
Sounds like "fake, but accurate."
"Kos insulted us all by calling us gullible for our recs. I gave it a rec because it was a good story not because I believed it was true."
Sounds like "fake, but accurate."
Posted by: Lorie Byrd at September 02, 2007 11:22 PM (LXj2j)
43
Ahh, Steve J. pulls out the neo-con label.
Well, now I know what side of the aisle he is posting from (not that there was much doubt, of course).
Well, now I know what side of the aisle he is posting from (not that there was much doubt, of course).
Posted by: C-C-G at September 02, 2007 11:32 PM (viASe)
44
Anyway, back to the main article...
You folks all fail to realize that Dubya is planning to use the new super-ultra-top-secret VTOL FA-18. Those are also the ones that Dubya has hovering over DNC headquarters (they're stealthed so they can't be heard) to gather information for the (everybody whisper now) Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
[/sarc]
You folks all fail to realize that Dubya is planning to use the new super-ultra-top-secret VTOL FA-18. Those are also the ones that Dubya has hovering over DNC headquarters (they're stealthed so they can't be heard) to gather information for the (everybody whisper now) Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
[/sarc]
Posted by: C-C-G at September 02, 2007 11:44 PM (viASe)
45
Those neocon sources Steve J. is citing are think tanks. I guess the lefties are so paranoid they take everything published by a conservative think tank as gospel truth because they are all controlled by PNAC Bushchimplerburtonkilbotgodbotheringhomophobes directly tied into the administration. The problem is the lefties also take evertything said on dailyKos as gospel as well. What is said between the sides is often in conflict. Cognitive dissonance and hilarity ensues.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 03, 2007 12:25 AM (0pZel)
46
My military experience is on dry land and in the air, but even a landlubber like me knows that it would be highly--highly--unlikely for a junior grade officer--on a ship with a compliment of some 5000(!)--to be privy to the kind of information this "LSO" claims to possess. It is just not the kind of information a LSO would have access to or care about in their daily work, and even senior chiefs would be far more likely to have that kind of access than junior officers.
Dumb. Just dumb, and the lefties lap it up like kittens with milk.
Dumb. Just dumb, and the lefties lap it up like kittens with milk.
Posted by: Mike99 at September 03, 2007 12:40 AM (eD2kz)
47
Matbe Kos and Maccabee can ask the folks over at TNR help them fact check the diary. I hear that's something they claim to be really good at.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 03, 2007 12:44 AM (0pZel)
48
Upthread, a commenter quoted some TruthOut posts about the capability of the Iranian military and weapons - specifically missiles.
What is TruthOut's point? That the United States military can't possibly survive against such superiority?
Beliefs such as that have cracked me up for decades.
In the seventies and eighties it was the USSR is too powerful. We can't possibly win, therefore we should kiss their butts and take pains not to provoke the Soviet Bear.
In 1990/91, against Iraq, they were the fourth largest army in the world. They were entrenched in Kuwait. Iraq wasn't going to rollover and play dead for us, we were going to face a determined, brutal enemy.
In 2001, when we went to Afghanistan, the chicken littles were again out in full song. The Soviets couldn't take Afghanistan in ten years with hundreds of thousands of troops. It was going to be a quagmire. Our next Vietnam.
In 2003, we wouldn't be able to take Baghdad without 10,000 body bags, with American troops in them, coming back to the United States. The Republican Guard were to well trained, loyal and disciplined. They would make a final stand and chew up our troops in the meat grinder of house to house fighting.
And now, we can't possibly gain anything by attacking Iran. It will be too costly. Fraught with risks and possible blowback. We'll be trapped in the Persian Gulf. Iran's missiles are too potent.
Not only do we have the most technologically advanced military in the world, we have the best trained and most professional. And right now, we are the most combat experienced military in the world. They are well trained, well equipped, disciplined - and blooded.
We should never underestimate our enemy. We rarely do. And our military never loses. Our politicians and our national will too often do.
What is TruthOut's point? That the United States military can't possibly survive against such superiority?
Beliefs such as that have cracked me up for decades.
In the seventies and eighties it was the USSR is too powerful. We can't possibly win, therefore we should kiss their butts and take pains not to provoke the Soviet Bear.
In 1990/91, against Iraq, they were the fourth largest army in the world. They were entrenched in Kuwait. Iraq wasn't going to rollover and play dead for us, we were going to face a determined, brutal enemy.
In 2001, when we went to Afghanistan, the chicken littles were again out in full song. The Soviets couldn't take Afghanistan in ten years with hundreds of thousands of troops. It was going to be a quagmire. Our next Vietnam.
In 2003, we wouldn't be able to take Baghdad without 10,000 body bags, with American troops in them, coming back to the United States. The Republican Guard were to well trained, loyal and disciplined. They would make a final stand and chew up our troops in the meat grinder of house to house fighting.
And now, we can't possibly gain anything by attacking Iran. It will be too costly. Fraught with risks and possible blowback. We'll be trapped in the Persian Gulf. Iran's missiles are too potent.
Not only do we have the most technologically advanced military in the world, we have the best trained and most professional. And right now, we are the most combat experienced military in the world. They are well trained, well equipped, disciplined - and blooded.
We should never underestimate our enemy. We rarely do. And our military never loses. Our politicians and our national will too often do.
Posted by: John in CA at September 03, 2007 03:01 AM (PQVEt)
49
The "Ah, yes, 'fake but accurate'" brush is too easily employed by people who can only think in blurbs and bullet points.
How about this one: "One part of the story was clearly inaccurate, while another part was quite possibly accurate"? You can then dismiss the clearly inaccurate part and devote serious cogitation to the possibly accurate part. In this case, the possibly accurate part of the story seems worthy of discussion.
How about this one: "One part of the story was clearly inaccurate, while another part was quite possibly accurate"? You can then dismiss the clearly inaccurate part and devote serious cogitation to the possibly accurate part. In this case, the possibly accurate part of the story seems worthy of discussion.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 07:35 AM (0K/xd)
Posted by: R30C at September 03, 2007 07:53 AM (XcXLi)
51
Nutrooters always forget that cache thing: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:NOiHRw6oH2AJ:www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527+http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Poor little liberals.
Poor little liberals.
Posted by: William Teach at September 03, 2007 07:57 AM (NaHh8)
52
Nutrooters always forget that cache thing: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:NOiHRw6oH2AJ:www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527+http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Poor little liberals.
I honestly don't get you guys. You're worked up when the stuff is posted--as witness the existence of this entire thread--and you're worked up when it's taken down (note the snarky messages about how it has been taken down). To retain credibility, choose a position and stick with it.
Nutrooters always forget that cache thing: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:NOiHRw6oH2AJ:www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527+http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Poor little liberals.
I honestly don't get you guys. You're worked up when the stuff is posted--as witness the existence of this entire thread--and you're worked up when it's taken down (note the snarky messages about how it has been taken down). To retain credibility, choose a position and stick with it.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 09:19 AM (0K/xd)
53
AFIK, I was the first student out at Point Loma to "beat" the TAC trainer (a PC-DOS based anti ship missile simulation of an overwhelming Soviet strike using all available assets against a battle group) the first time out.
The final missile I had to defeat was a sub-launched SSN-9 ("Ten Seconds To Deadline," for those who remember the training film). I did that by placing my frigate's rudder "hard left," declining the launch angle of my starboard SRBOC launcher and, in essence, spraying and praying my last round of chaff. It wasn't pull off, it wasn't centroid, the TAC trainer scored it a ballistic hit against the SSN-9 by the SRBOC round. (And even I have no idea how the trainer figured that: a bunch of little bundles of metallized Mylar vs an antiship missile?)
That's only one tiny anecdote from a decade of active duty: there are more from a decade of reserve duty. There are a lot of my anecdotes that get a "That's a no shitter, ain't it?" response from other sailors...but no, it isn't.
I have no idea what makes the nutroots think that they will have any credibility whatever when they post shit like "Maccabee" did.
(And, BTW, its choice of nic offends me as well: I started studying Judaism 25 years ago with a thought to converting but decided I wasn't worthy of being a Jew, so content myself to being a Noahide.)
Gah.
The final missile I had to defeat was a sub-launched SSN-9 ("Ten Seconds To Deadline," for those who remember the training film). I did that by placing my frigate's rudder "hard left," declining the launch angle of my starboard SRBOC launcher and, in essence, spraying and praying my last round of chaff. It wasn't pull off, it wasn't centroid, the TAC trainer scored it a ballistic hit against the SSN-9 by the SRBOC round. (And even I have no idea how the trainer figured that: a bunch of little bundles of metallized Mylar vs an antiship missile?)
That's only one tiny anecdote from a decade of active duty: there are more from a decade of reserve duty. There are a lot of my anecdotes that get a "That's a no shitter, ain't it?" response from other sailors...but no, it isn't.
I have no idea what makes the nutroots think that they will have any credibility whatever when they post shit like "Maccabee" did.
(And, BTW, its choice of nic offends me as well: I started studying Judaism 25 years ago with a thought to converting but decided I wasn't worthy of being a Jew, so content myself to being a Noahide.)
Gah.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 09:32 AM (YcNsA)
54
I honestly don't get you nunaim. Don't you get tired of making excuses for the dishonesty of the left and then the gullibility of those taken in by the dishonesty? Why not take a look in the mirror and figure out that something is fundamentally wrong that your side feels compelled to lie so frequently in its attempts to communicate and persuade.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 03, 2007 09:47 AM (0pZel)
55
Gack. Apologies for the double post: I got a wait and try again in a minute message due to spam the first time.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 09:53 AM (YcNsA)
56
Hey, what's the big deal about made-up stories on attacking Iran, when major US newspapers publish stories about being nicer to terrorists ... um ... oops, I meant ... pedophiles?
www . philly . com/ inquirer/currents/20070902_The_Point___CRIMINAL_HYSTERIA.html">LINK
I don't make this stuff up.
www . philly . com/ inquirer/currents/20070902_The_Point___CRIMINAL_HYSTERIA.html">LINK
I don't make this stuff up.
Posted by: Eris at September 03, 2007 10:00 AM (h9CTW)
57
The link is
www . philly . com/ inquirer/currents/20070902_The_Point___CRIMINAL_HYSTERIA.html
(remove spaces)
www . philly . com/ inquirer/currents/20070902_The_Point___CRIMINAL_HYSTERIA.html
(remove spaces)
Posted by: Eris at September 03, 2007 10:01 AM (h9CTW)
58
nunaim sez:
I honestly don't get you guys. You're worked up when the stuff is posted--as witness the existence of this entire thread--and you're worked up when it's taken down (note the snarky messages about how it has been taken down). To retain credibility, choose a position and stick with it.
I would think that it would be obvious even to a demagogue like you: when you lie, then try to hide it, people notice.
My position is that you are colluding with liars, and therefore not worthy of this response. So, consider yourself graced by my attention...it's the last you will receive from me.
I honestly don't get you guys. You're worked up when the stuff is posted--as witness the existence of this entire thread--and you're worked up when it's taken down (note the snarky messages about how it has been taken down). To retain credibility, choose a position and stick with it.
I would think that it would be obvious even to a demagogue like you: when you lie, then try to hide it, people notice.
My position is that you are colluding with liars, and therefore not worthy of this response. So, consider yourself graced by my attention...it's the last you will receive from me.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 10:04 AM (YcNsA)
59
nunaim, I will grant you one point.
The Pentagon does have plans to invade Iran.
Of course, the Pentagon also has plans to invade Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, and even the Vatican City and Lichtenstein.
That's their friggin' job, you microcephalic moron, to make plans for future invasions if they become necessary.
As for whether or not those plans are being implemented, there's just too many holes in your Kos friend's story for me to take her word for it.
In short, all the other errors have destroyed her credibility. And if you want to destroy the remaining shreds of your own credibility, nunaim, just go right on defending her with the "fake but accurate" meme.
The Pentagon does have plans to invade Iran.
Of course, the Pentagon also has plans to invade Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, and even the Vatican City and Lichtenstein.
That's their friggin' job, you microcephalic moron, to make plans for future invasions if they become necessary.
As for whether or not those plans are being implemented, there's just too many holes in your Kos friend's story for me to take her word for it.
In short, all the other errors have destroyed her credibility. And if you want to destroy the remaining shreds of your own credibility, nunaim, just go right on defending her with the "fake but accurate" meme.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 10:08 AM (viASe)
60
Over on Wizbang, a commenter brings up another error.
There is no "Gulf of Hormuz."
There's the Strait of Hormuz, which lies in the Persian Gulf, but no "Gulf of Hormuz."
If our Kos Kiddie had bothered to even look at a map of the region, they'd have known that.
There is no "Gulf of Hormuz."
There's the Strait of Hormuz, which lies in the Persian Gulf, but no "Gulf of Hormuz."
If our Kos Kiddie had bothered to even look at a map of the region, they'd have known that.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 10:30 AM (viASe)
61
"I honestly don't get you guys. You're worked up when the stuff is posted--as witness the existence of this entire thread--and you're worked up when it's taken down (note the snarky messages about how it has been taken down). To retain credibility, choose a position and stick with it.
Posted by nunaim"
How is it a position change for our side? You lefties are renowned for deleting your posts, once you have been caught.
Here is the position: lefties will make up anything to support their advanced BDS and hatred of America.
Posted by nunaim"
How is it a position change for our side? You lefties are renowned for deleting your posts, once you have been caught.
Here is the position: lefties will make up anything to support their advanced BDS and hatred of America.
Posted by: William Teach at September 03, 2007 10:32 AM (TFSHk)
62
nunaim, what part of EW(1)'s position was in error?
dem-a-gogue (v): to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
The original Kos author's post was clearly demagogic in character, feeding upon the left's antipathy towards President Bush, their paranoia about "secret plans," and their lack of knowledge about the Armed Forces. In short, the author appealed to their emotionalism and their prejudice in order to distort their response. See definition above.
col-lude (v): to conspire in a fraud.
Since you are defending the demagogue described above, you could be considered to be colluding with them according to the definition above, since the fraudulent nature of the original Kos article has been so well established that even you aren't trying to defend it on those merits.
grace (v): to favor or honor.
EW(1) certainly has graced CY, and you, with his presence.
Looks like you need to consult the dictionary yourself. I recommend Dictionary.com, where all of the above definitions were found.
dem-a-gogue (v): to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
The original Kos author's post was clearly demagogic in character, feeding upon the left's antipathy towards President Bush, their paranoia about "secret plans," and their lack of knowledge about the Armed Forces. In short, the author appealed to their emotionalism and their prejudice in order to distort their response. See definition above.
col-lude (v): to conspire in a fraud.
Since you are defending the demagogue described above, you could be considered to be colluding with them according to the definition above, since the fraudulent nature of the original Kos article has been so well established that even you aren't trying to defend it on those merits.
grace (v): to favor or honor.
EW(1) certainly has graced CY, and you, with his presence.
Looks like you need to consult the dictionary yourself. I recommend Dictionary.com, where all of the above definitions were found.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 11:24 AM (viASe)
63
all: I'd like to remind everyone that CY allows no profanity to be posted in the comments, and that even those comments that are otherwise stellar will be summarily deleted for such language.
nunaim: you're really close to being classified as a troll, and banned.
nunaim: you're really close to being classified as a troll, and banned.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 03, 2007 11:26 AM (HcgFD)
64
Re Yardbird
"What I find most amazing is there is not a single poster in the comment section that has even the minimum knowledge to call bs on the original diary."
My comment upon reading the original:
Sorry, don't believe the military parts, (4+ / 0-)
irrespective of the politics.
by valion on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:46:04 PM EDT
"What I find most amazing is there is not a single poster in the comment section that has even the minimum knowledge to call bs on the original diary."
My comment upon reading the original:
Sorry, don't believe the military parts, (4+ / 0-)
irrespective of the politics.
by valion on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:46:04 PM EDT
Posted by: valion at September 03, 2007 11:40 AM (R2jye)
65
I used no profanity in my post, CY.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 12:03 PM (0K/xd)
66
nunaim, I reread the DKos post and scanned all 1343 replies (I still have that page open and saved), and nowhere is there a discussion of the problems Iran poses and what, exactly, should be done. Instead, its nothing but a Bush bash fest. If the purpose of that post was to discuss Iran, it didn't seem to work, and the writer did not seem too eager to try to bring the discussion back to topic.
Uh, try again???
Uh, try again???
Posted by: TomB at September 03, 2007 12:18 PM (2AkLB)
67
"Sorry, don't believe the military parts, (4+ / 0-)
irrespective of the politics."
How is saying that you don't believe something mean that had the minimal knowledge needed to call BS on the post?
irrespective of the politics."
How is saying that you don't believe something mean that had the minimal knowledge needed to call BS on the post?
Posted by: Blarg the Destroyer at September 03, 2007 12:23 PM (I+C25)
68
nunaim, I reread the DKos post and scanned all 1343 replies (I still have that page open and saved), and nowhere is there a discussion of the problems Iran poses and what, exactly, should be done. Instead, its nothing but a Bush bash fest. If the purpose of that post was to discuss Iran, it didn't seem to work, and the writer did not seem too eager to try to bring the discussion back to topic.
Uh, try again???
Try what again? I'm not sure what your point is. I'm talking about this site and the responses here. If this person is wrong about the military stuff, does that mean that there is no push to invade Iran? The two things--this Kos commenter's post and the actual intentions of the Administration--are, in reality, unrelated.
An invasion of Iran seems like a reasonable possibility. Wouldn't it make more sense to hash that out than to focus on what aircraft carriers can or cannot accommodate a whatever? Why spend time on stuff that you know is not true?
nunaim, I reread the DKos post and scanned all 1343 replies (I still have that page open and saved), and nowhere is there a discussion of the problems Iran poses and what, exactly, should be done. Instead, its nothing but a Bush bash fest. If the purpose of that post was to discuss Iran, it didn't seem to work, and the writer did not seem too eager to try to bring the discussion back to topic.
Uh, try again???
Try what again? I'm not sure what your point is. I'm talking about this site and the responses here. If this person is wrong about the military stuff, does that mean that there is no push to invade Iran? The two things--this Kos commenter's post and the actual intentions of the Administration--are, in reality, unrelated.
An invasion of Iran seems like a reasonable possibility. Wouldn't it make more sense to hash that out than to focus on what aircraft carriers can or cannot accommodate a whatever? Why spend time on stuff that you know is not true?
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 12:40 PM (0K/xd)
69
nunaim, the fact that the Kos author was clueless about what carriers launch what is a clear indication that he/she/it has absolutely no idea about the military.
Therefore, they have absolutely no credibility on any military issue.
Therefore, you can either continue making a fool of yourself, or you can shut up now.
It's your call.
Therefore, they have absolutely no credibility on any military issue.
Therefore, you can either continue making a fool of yourself, or you can shut up now.
It's your call.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 12:58 PM (viASe)
70
CY:
all: I'd like to remind everyone that CY allows no profanity to be posted in the comments, and that even those comments that are otherwise stellar will be summarily deleted for such language.
CY, my apologies; I really am a sailor (unfortunately with the attendent language) so if I mispoke, my sincere apologies. And if you were so kind as to have cleant up what I thought I said, good on ya' and I'll try not to do that again.
all: I'd like to remind everyone that CY allows no profanity to be posted in the comments, and that even those comments that are otherwise stellar will be summarily deleted for such language.
CY, my apologies; I really am a sailor (unfortunately with the attendent language) so if I mispoke, my sincere apologies. And if you were so kind as to have cleant up what I thought I said, good on ya' and I'll try not to do that again.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 01:48 PM (YcNsA)
71
CCG:
You're saying that, because this person was wrong about the details of military hardware, there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
A bold assertion, my friend. I personally hope you're right. But what if you're wrong? Surely in that case I can expect the ever-demanded (demanded, at least, by right-wing bloggers) PUBLIC APOLOGY from you? That is to say, if we do, in fact, commence military action against Iran, you will apologize in this forum for your error, right?
You're saying that, because this person was wrong about the details of military hardware, there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
A bold assertion, my friend. I personally hope you're right. But what if you're wrong? Surely in that case I can expect the ever-demanded (demanded, at least, by right-wing bloggers) PUBLIC APOLOGY from you? That is to say, if we do, in fact, commence military action against Iran, you will apologize in this forum for your error, right?
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 01:49 PM (0K/xd)
72
No, I did not say that. Please invest in reading comprehension classes and, if needed, English as a second language classes.
I said that the Kos author's speculations about a war between the US and Iran can be discounted because of the clear and obvious falsehoods already told by that person.
Now, I have explained it as I would to a reasonably intelligent adult. Do I have to explain as I would to a third grader now?
I said that the Kos author's speculations about a war between the US and Iran can be discounted because of the clear and obvious falsehoods already told by that person.
Now, I have explained it as I would to a reasonably intelligent adult. Do I have to explain as I would to a third grader now?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 02:39 PM (viASe)
73
No, I did not say that.
Now you're just lying, and you're embarrassng both of us. The back-and-fill is not going to work; be a man and stand behind what you wrote.
No, I did not say that.
Now you're just lying, and you're embarrassng both of us. The back-and-fill is not going to work; be a man and stand behind what you wrote.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 02:43 PM (0K/xd)
74
nunaim, you are the liar here.
Quote for me the exact sentence where I said that there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
Quote for me the exact sentence where I said that there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 02:47 PM (viASe)
75
Me:
How about this one: "One part of the story was clearly inaccurate, while another part was quite possibly accurate"? You can then dismiss the clearly inaccurate part and devote serious cogitation to the possibly accurate part. In this case, the possibly accurate part of the story seems worthy of discussion.
You:
he fact that the Kos author was clueless about what carriers launch what is a clear indication that he/she/it has absolutely no idea about the military. Therefore, they have absolutely no credibility on any military issue.
Her contention that the US is gearing up to invade Iran is clearly a "military issue." My suggestion that we focus on that instead of the technological details was met with the flat-out assertion that nothing that writer said had any credibility or was worthy of discussion. That would include the part about an invasion.
Don't rewrite history. It's there for all to see.
How about this one: "One part of the story was clearly inaccurate, while another part was quite possibly accurate"? You can then dismiss the clearly inaccurate part and devote serious cogitation to the possibly accurate part. In this case, the possibly accurate part of the story seems worthy of discussion.
You:
he fact that the Kos author was clueless about what carriers launch what is a clear indication that he/she/it has absolutely no idea about the military. Therefore, they have absolutely no credibility on any military issue.
Her contention that the US is gearing up to invade Iran is clearly a "military issue." My suggestion that we focus on that instead of the technological details was met with the flat-out assertion that nothing that writer said had any credibility or was worthy of discussion. That would include the part about an invasion.
Don't rewrite history. It's there for all to see.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 03:07 PM (0K/xd)
76
Man, you are really stretching, you know that? Either you are so stupid that you need reminders to remember to breathe or you think we do.
Just because I said we can discount the Kos author's assertions does not mean that I believe we can discount the possibility of war with Iran.
Looks like I will have to put it in third-grader terms.
Little Billy tells you that the sky is green, that mud tastes just like chocolate, and that he has four arms. He also tells you that your mommy will get divorced and take up with another woman. You don't believe Billy because you can see that the sky is not green, he only has two arms, and you've tasted both mud and chocolate and decided they taste nothing alike. So, you don't believe anything Billy says. Later, if it happens that your mommy does leave daddy and sleep with another woman, it's not because of what Billy said, but because of other things that happened.
Do ya get it now, or do I need to put in even simpler language?
Just because I said we can discount the Kos author's assertions does not mean that I believe we can discount the possibility of war with Iran.
Looks like I will have to put it in third-grader terms.
Little Billy tells you that the sky is green, that mud tastes just like chocolate, and that he has four arms. He also tells you that your mommy will get divorced and take up with another woman. You don't believe Billy because you can see that the sky is not green, he only has two arms, and you've tasted both mud and chocolate and decided they taste nothing alike. So, you don't believe anything Billy says. Later, if it happens that your mommy does leave daddy and sleep with another woman, it's not because of what Billy said, but because of other things that happened.
Do ya get it now, or do I need to put in even simpler language?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 03:12 PM (viASe)
77
nunaim, Did you take this:
As for whether or not those plans are being implemented, there's just too many holes in your Kos friend's story for me to take her word for it.
and turn it into:
You're saying that, because this person was wrong about the details of military hardware, there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
And then accused someone of lying for saying they didn't make that assertion? As you said, that's a bold assertion, my friend.
He said, the "source's" story of preparation to attack Iran can be discounted because the "source's" entire framework was made up. Therefore, the "source's" assertion that her carrier group was preparing to attack Iran was also made up.
In short, it's a made up story all around.
Now, nunaim, just so you don't get confused, I will elaborate on a couple of things. We're going to attack Iran. We're going to bomb them back to the stone age. Ackmadinnerjacket needs to realize that.
Next, there is no doubt in my mind that there are up to date, current and viable plans and planning to carry out that mission. I would venture to say that every carrier battle group that gets near the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf is refining plans, practicing for Alpha Strikes and flying attack profiles that would be employed in the event of an attack on Iran. You know why? 'Cuz that's what military people do! It's their JOB!
They're runninc General Quarters scenarios based on attacks by Iranian forces and weapons. They're practicing and drilling based on what the possible actions are in their theater of operations. You know why, nunaim? 'Cuz that's what sailors do! It's their JOB!
As for whether or not those plans are being implemented, there's just too many holes in your Kos friend's story for me to take her word for it.
and turn it into:
You're saying that, because this person was wrong about the details of military hardware, there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
And then accused someone of lying for saying they didn't make that assertion? As you said, that's a bold assertion, my friend.
He said, the "source's" story of preparation to attack Iran can be discounted because the "source's" entire framework was made up. Therefore, the "source's" assertion that her carrier group was preparing to attack Iran was also made up.
In short, it's a made up story all around.
Now, nunaim, just so you don't get confused, I will elaborate on a couple of things. We're going to attack Iran. We're going to bomb them back to the stone age. Ackmadinnerjacket needs to realize that.
Next, there is no doubt in my mind that there are up to date, current and viable plans and planning to carry out that mission. I would venture to say that every carrier battle group that gets near the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf is refining plans, practicing for Alpha Strikes and flying attack profiles that would be employed in the event of an attack on Iran. You know why? 'Cuz that's what military people do! It's their JOB!
They're runninc General Quarters scenarios based on attacks by Iranian forces and weapons. They're practicing and drilling based on what the possible actions are in their theater of operations. You know why, nunaim? 'Cuz that's what sailors do! It's their JOB!
Posted by: John in CA at September 03, 2007 03:13 PM (PQVEt)
78
Oh, I get it, John: "Assertion A is not true when somebody else says it, but Assertion A is true when I say it."
Hooray for logic!
Hooray for logic!
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 03:20 PM (0K/xd)
79
nunaim, why, specifically, are you trying to hard to prove that the Kos source's assertions are true?
Are you not, in fact, attempting to achieve the "fake but accurate" meme by a different method, by proving the accuracy of one portion of the Kos source's assertions?
And did you not assume that we are all too stupid to realize that is what you are doing?
Are you not, in fact, attempting to achieve the "fake but accurate" meme by a different method, by proving the accuracy of one portion of the Kos source's assertions?
And did you not assume that we are all too stupid to realize that is what you are doing?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 03:35 PM (viASe)
80
nunaim's just mad that he and the rest of the kos crazies got caught with their pants down again. Face it nunaim, you guys got caught in another Beauchamp style lie.
Jim C
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at September 03, 2007 04:27 PM (ON55K)
81
nunaim, if you want to discuss the possible attack on Iran, start your own blog and have at it.
How hard is this to understand. CY wrote a post questioning the veracity of a DKos article. We are discussing that post. You are trying to change the subject. It isn't working.
In addition, that post didn't just discuss an impending attack on Iran, it also went into detail as to how universal hatred for Bush was and how the sailors on the carrier questioned the current policy. That in itself is a significant assertion, one that we can safely discount.
How hard is this to understand. CY wrote a post questioning the veracity of a DKos article. We are discussing that post. You are trying to change the subject. It isn't working.
In addition, that post didn't just discuss an impending attack on Iran, it also went into detail as to how universal hatred for Bush was and how the sailors on the carrier questioned the current policy. That in itself is a significant assertion, one that we can safely discount.
Posted by: TomB at September 03, 2007 04:36 PM (2AkLB)
82
Ooops, sorry, CY. Saw where I messed it up. Please feel free to edit or delete.
And I'll try to 'member when I'm speakin' where ladies like the gracious Sara upthread are present in future.
And I'll try to 'member when I'm speakin' where ladies like the gracious Sara upthread are present in future.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 04:38 PM (YcNsA)
83
CY,
Yes, it is amazing that this latest fabulist tale of US malfeasance and W. malevolence so quickly was accepted as nothing more than conventional wisdom and once discredited, remains somehow "true" to its believers.
I think the feeble and tiresome gymnastics of nunaim notwithstanding, there is little else to discuss here about the story itself, now that the story has been disappeared down the memory hole.
But I will add this.
nunaim is a troll.
I don't think you can read the comments here any other way.
Just sayin'.
Yes, it is amazing that this latest fabulist tale of US malfeasance and W. malevolence so quickly was accepted as nothing more than conventional wisdom and once discredited, remains somehow "true" to its believers.
I think the feeble and tiresome gymnastics of nunaim notwithstanding, there is little else to discuss here about the story itself, now that the story has been disappeared down the memory hole.
But I will add this.
nunaim is a troll.
I don't think you can read the comments here any other way.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: MeTooThen at September 03, 2007 06:01 PM (1xjmZ)
84
Nunaims' strawman has already been thrashed, but let's just clarify one thing. A new war cannot be launched against Iran without the blessing of congress, which seems to be ran by a majority of the party Nunaim prefers. So if it occurs, it's the fault of, or blessed by the democrats. Feel safer now Nunaim or don't you trust your own people?
And by the way what's with the handle Nunaim (new name)? Have you been banned in the past?
And by the way what's with the handle Nunaim (new name)? Have you been banned in the past?
Posted by: R30C at September 03, 2007 06:20 PM (XcXLi)
85
Thank you, CY, for reading Kos so I don't have to. I don't give him any clicks since he exulted over the murder of those lynched American contractors. Screw him!
Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at September 03, 2007 08:01 PM (5ayUr)
86
A new war cannot be launched against Iran without the blessing of congress, which seems to be ran by a majority of the party Nunaim prefers.
R3OC, that's true as far as a war goes. However, the President may not need approval to authorize a military operation. A three day blitz, as the latest reporting terms it, could be accomplished with no authorization from Congress under the War Powers Resolution (aka War Powers Act).
Besides the War Powers Resolution, I bet there is language in the AUMF for Iraq and Afghanistan that could be broadly interpreted as authorization to use force against Iran, especially in light of their activities in Iraq.
Just think of the military actions we've taken in the last 30 years that have required no declaration of war by the congress - Reagan bombing Libya springs to mind. I don't know if Congress was notified or consulted before Grenada and Panama, but neither were declared wars.
So, hehe, the President would surely be able to wreak some mayhem on Iran before Congress could get their thongs in a twist.
R3OC, that's true as far as a war goes. However, the President may not need approval to authorize a military operation. A three day blitz, as the latest reporting terms it, could be accomplished with no authorization from Congress under the War Powers Resolution (aka War Powers Act).
Besides the War Powers Resolution, I bet there is language in the AUMF for Iraq and Afghanistan that could be broadly interpreted as authorization to use force against Iran, especially in light of their activities in Iraq.
Just think of the military actions we've taken in the last 30 years that have required no declaration of war by the congress - Reagan bombing Libya springs to mind. I don't know if Congress was notified or consulted before Grenada and Panama, but neither were declared wars.
So, hehe, the President would surely be able to wreak some mayhem on Iran before Congress could get their thongs in a twist.
Posted by: John in CA at September 03, 2007 08:27 PM (PQVEt)
87
Oh, nunaim... where'd ya go, my friend? I was eagerly awaiting the answer to my question above and you disappeared!
John, if Dubya wants to cause massive apoplexy among the lefties, both in Congress and elsewhere, attacking Iran would be a heck of an effective way to do it. -lol-
John, if Dubya wants to cause massive apoplexy among the lefties, both in Congress and elsewhere, attacking Iran would be a heck of an effective way to do it. -lol-
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 09:05 PM (viASe)
88
nunaim, let me make this as simple as possible.
The Kos poster states the conclusion that the US will attack Iran soon. The conclusion is based on information from a person on a carrier battlegroup. The veracity of the conclusion is based on the credibility of the informant.
Many people here - lex, EW1(SG) - have provided information that challenges the credibility of the Kos poster's informant.
Again, the veracity of the conclusion was dependant on the credibility of the informant. Since the credibility of the informant is false why should anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the conclusion?
That is the entire point.
The Kos poster states the conclusion that the US will attack Iran soon. The conclusion is based on information from a person on a carrier battlegroup. The veracity of the conclusion is based on the credibility of the informant.
Many people here - lex, EW1(SG) - have provided information that challenges the credibility of the Kos poster's informant.
Again, the veracity of the conclusion was dependant on the credibility of the informant. Since the credibility of the informant is false why should anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the conclusion?
That is the entire point.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 04, 2007 10:04 AM (O9Cc8)
89
Point that should be emphasized: The conclusion may be correct - it just cannot be supported by the evidence the Kos poster has provided. That evidence is not credible.
If you want that conclusion (the US will attack Iran soon) to be supported, then credible evidence must first be found.
If you want that conclusion (the US will attack Iran soon) to be supported, then credible evidence must first be found.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 04, 2007 10:21 AM (O9Cc8)
90
Hmmmm.
Sooooooooooo.
TNR back from vacation .... YET?
I'm still waiting for them to finish their investigation.
Sooooooooooo.
TNR back from vacation .... YET?
I'm still waiting for them to finish their investigation.
Posted by: memomachine at September 04, 2007 10:52 AM (3pvQO)
91
Again, the veracity of the conclusion was dependant on the credibility of the informant. Since the credibility of the informant is false why should anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the conclusion?
Because the conclusion that we are ratcheting up for a war with Iran can easily be reached independently of this person's writing. That has been my point--ignore the obvious crapola and deal with what is obviously not crapola.
Again, the veracity of the conclusion was dependant on the credibility of the informant. Since the credibility of the informant is false why should anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the conclusion?
Because the conclusion that we are ratcheting up for a war with Iran can easily be reached independently of this person's writing. That has been my point--ignore the obvious crapola and deal with what is obviously not crapola.
Posted by: nunaim at September 04, 2007 02:46 PM (22/Qe)
92
That, numian, is the point I made which you missed. You cannot use this Kos posting as evidence of the conclusion; you have to present other evidence. I admit, this sounds good: sailor in th fleet notes preparations for attack! Man, that is top notch stuff real close to the action! It really supports the conclusion!
Only it doesn't, because the informant is not credible. Find other evidence other that "the military has plans" because they always have plans.
Again: the conclusion may be corre4ct, only this evidence is not credible and cannot be used to support the conclusion. Find other, credible evidence that supports the conclusion.
And stop attacking people for pointing out that the evidence isn't credible.
Only it doesn't, because the informant is not credible. Find other evidence other that "the military has plans" because they always have plans.
Again: the conclusion may be corre4ct, only this evidence is not credible and cannot be used to support the conclusion. Find other, credible evidence that supports the conclusion.
And stop attacking people for pointing out that the evidence isn't credible.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 04, 2007 03:28 PM (O9Cc8)
93
nunaim, you have yet to answer my query above.
Perhaps that is because you do not wish to admit that I have discerned your motive?
"Fake but accurate" rides again, methinks.
Perhaps that is because you do not wish to admit that I have discerned your motive?
"Fake but accurate" rides again, methinks.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 06:55 PM (viASe)
94
nunaim, why, specifically, are you trying to hard to prove that the Kos source's assertions are true?
Are you not, in fact, attempting to achieve the "fake but accurate" meme by a different method, by proving the accuracy of one portion of the Kos source's assertions?
And did you not assume that we are all too stupid to realize that is what you are doing?
Well, CCG, you're right about one thing: I do assume that you're stupid.
As I review what I've contributed, I notice that I call the Kos poster's assertions "clearly inaccurate" and "crapola."
I then go on to point out that we can throw all that stuff out and discuss a real issue instead of being distracted by the dog with the puffy tail.
If this constitutes for you "trying too hard" to prove the Kos poster's points, then you're a fool.
Methinks.
nunaim, why, specifically, are you trying to hard to prove that the Kos source's assertions are true?
Are you not, in fact, attempting to achieve the "fake but accurate" meme by a different method, by proving the accuracy of one portion of the Kos source's assertions?
And did you not assume that we are all too stupid to realize that is what you are doing?
Well, CCG, you're right about one thing: I do assume that you're stupid.
As I review what I've contributed, I notice that I call the Kos poster's assertions "clearly inaccurate" and "crapola."
I then go on to point out that we can throw all that stuff out and discuss a real issue instead of being distracted by the dog with the puffy tail.
If this constitutes for you "trying too hard" to prove the Kos poster's points, then you're a fool.
Methinks.
Posted by: nunaim at September 04, 2007 08:51 PM (hG7zN)
95
I have seen pictures of Midway with squadrons of Marine F/A-18s. I suspect she and Coral Sea (both only 45,000 tons) were too small to carry F-14s. Abraham Lincoln is 97,500 tons. For comparison, Charles de Gaulle is only 38,000 tons
Posted by: fox2! at September 04, 2007 09:11 PM (mS51q)
96
Okay, nunaim, let's play it your way, just for giggles.
Yes, war with Iran is possible. (I've said that before.)
Yes, the Pentagon has plans for an Iranian war. (I've said that before.)
There, now we've "discussed" it.
Now, let's get back to the topic stated by the owner of this blog, at whose sufferance we all post here.
Kos is populated largely by people whose lack of knowledge about the military is only matched in most cases by their antipathy towards it.
The particular Kos post under discussion was specifically aimed at fulfilling the stereotypes of those leftists who believe that George W. Bush is out to conquer the world a la Dr. Evil. As such, it is of high interest to those of us who find such a belief laughable.
The numerous errors in military technology already enumerated makes it all that much more laughable.
There, I've laid out several points that you should be able to discuss without necessarily having to bring up whether or not a war with Iran is possible or whether plans already exist for it... both of which, I remind you once again, I have already postulated.
Yes, war with Iran is possible. (I've said that before.)
Yes, the Pentagon has plans for an Iranian war. (I've said that before.)
There, now we've "discussed" it.
Now, let's get back to the topic stated by the owner of this blog, at whose sufferance we all post here.
Kos is populated largely by people whose lack of knowledge about the military is only matched in most cases by their antipathy towards it.
The particular Kos post under discussion was specifically aimed at fulfilling the stereotypes of those leftists who believe that George W. Bush is out to conquer the world a la Dr. Evil. As such, it is of high interest to those of us who find such a belief laughable.
The numerous errors in military technology already enumerated makes it all that much more laughable.
There, I've laid out several points that you should be able to discuss without necessarily having to bring up whether or not a war with Iran is possible or whether plans already exist for it... both of which, I remind you once again, I have already postulated.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 09:18 PM (viASe)
97
If the left is so ignorant of the U.S. military and gets duped so easily by phoney posts like Maccabbee's, why should they be given any credibility in discussing the capabilities of the Iranian military establishment?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 04, 2007 10:53 PM (0pZel)
98
If the left is so ignorant of the U.S. military and gets duped so easily by phoney posts like Maccabbee's, why should they be given any credibility in discussing the capabilities of the Iranian military establishment?
Not to mention all the other times they have been wrong. "Ten thousand bodybags" needed for the first Gulf War springs immediately to mind.
Not to mention all the other times they have been wrong. "Ten thousand bodybags" needed for the first Gulf War springs immediately to mind.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 11:47 PM (viASe)
99
Because the conclusion that we are ratcheting up for a war with Iran can easily be reached independently of this person's writing. That has been my point--ignore the obvious crapola and deal with what is obviously not crapola.
Ok if that conclusion can so easily be reached independent of everything, why make up all the elaborate (and clueless) lies?? Perhaps because the author was just making up stuff the whole time.
They really have no clue on whether we plan to invade Iran. But they wanted to pretend that they were and so had to make up something to establish credibility. They utterly failed. You fell for it. We called you on it, now you're just embarassed.
You can admit you were wrong, we're here and listening. I won't hold my breath though.
While we're waiting, you might also want to think about why the left so often needs to make up these elaborate lies. If your worldview is so based upon reality, why do you need to invent your own reality?
Ok if that conclusion can so easily be reached independent of everything, why make up all the elaborate (and clueless) lies?? Perhaps because the author was just making up stuff the whole time.
They really have no clue on whether we plan to invade Iran. But they wanted to pretend that they were and so had to make up something to establish credibility. They utterly failed. You fell for it. We called you on it, now you're just embarassed.
You can admit you were wrong, we're here and listening. I won't hold my breath though.
While we're waiting, you might also want to think about why the left so often needs to make up these elaborate lies. If your worldview is so based upon reality, why do you need to invent your own reality?
Posted by: Kevin at September 05, 2007 12:05 AM (NJS4G)
100
You fell for it. We called you on it, now you're just embarassed.
You can admit you were wrong, we're here and listening. I won't hold my breath though.
As memomachine would put it: Hmmmm.
What, precisely, did I fall for? What, exactly, did I get wrong?
Difficulty: actually use what I wrote, and not what you wish I'd written.
They really have no clue on whether we plan to invade Iran.
That's going too far. We definitely have clues, and that's really all we ever have until something actually happens, isn't it?
The Administration's increased public interest in Iran, the stories about Iranian weapons going into Iraq, the increased rhetoric about Iranian/AQ ties--all those are things that suggest that the groundwork is being laid for an invasion. That's exactly what happened before Iraq.
Are you saying that all speculation along such lines is inappropriate? Are you saying that we need to wait for an official press release from the Pentagon before this issue can be discussed by the people? Remember that right up to just before the Iraq invasion the Administration was saying, "Iraq? Bah! We have no plans!" And that turned out to be--how shall we say?--less that forthcoming.
It may even be that an invasion of Iraq is the correct and intelligent course of action. It would take some real convincing on the part of the Administration, however, after the miscommunications of the past few years.
Also: not being a military type, I don't understand how we could mount yet another war when I hear that our forces are stretched pretty thin already.
You fell for it. We called you on it, now you're just embarassed.
You can admit you were wrong, we're here and listening. I won't hold my breath though.
As memomachine would put it: Hmmmm.
What, precisely, did I fall for? What, exactly, did I get wrong?
Difficulty: actually use what I wrote, and not what you wish I'd written.
They really have no clue on whether we plan to invade Iran.
That's going too far. We definitely have clues, and that's really all we ever have until something actually happens, isn't it?
The Administration's increased public interest in Iran, the stories about Iranian weapons going into Iraq, the increased rhetoric about Iranian/AQ ties--all those are things that suggest that the groundwork is being laid for an invasion. That's exactly what happened before Iraq.
Are you saying that all speculation along such lines is inappropriate? Are you saying that we need to wait for an official press release from the Pentagon before this issue can be discussed by the people? Remember that right up to just before the Iraq invasion the Administration was saying, "Iraq? Bah! We have no plans!" And that turned out to be--how shall we say?--less that forthcoming.
It may even be that an invasion of Iraq is the correct and intelligent course of action. It would take some real convincing on the part of the Administration, however, after the miscommunications of the past few years.
Also: not being a military type, I don't understand how we could mount yet another war when I hear that our forces are stretched pretty thin already.
Posted by: nunaim at September 05, 2007 08:33 AM (xctDK)
101
nunaim is running the usual lefty defense when caught in an egregious falsehood:
"Just because we're lying is no reason not to believe us!"
Just because Kerry was never in Cambodia is no reason Nixon didn't deploy troops there (a full month before he was sworn in as President). Just because Jesse MacBeth was a fraud is no reason his story was false. Just because Scott Thomas Beauchamp was making stuff up is no reason his story is untrue. And just because a few tiny, irrelevant details of the phony LSO story are wrong is no reason the story isn't true.
So if all your supporting evidence is made up, why ought we to believe your claims? I'm just not smart enough to make the logical leap there. I'm simple enough to believe that if your basic story is made of lies, then it isn't believeable. Or is this another "the narrative is right, but the facts are wrong?"
"Just because we're lying is no reason not to believe us!"
Just because Kerry was never in Cambodia is no reason Nixon didn't deploy troops there (a full month before he was sworn in as President). Just because Jesse MacBeth was a fraud is no reason his story was false. Just because Scott Thomas Beauchamp was making stuff up is no reason his story is untrue. And just because a few tiny, irrelevant details of the phony LSO story are wrong is no reason the story isn't true.
So if all your supporting evidence is made up, why ought we to believe your claims? I'm just not smart enough to make the logical leap there. I'm simple enough to believe that if your basic story is made of lies, then it isn't believeable. Or is this another "the narrative is right, but the facts are wrong?"
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 05, 2007 12:08 PM (Srvjc)
102
Okay, and before anyone questions my street cred, let me just state that I am a retired E-14 Chief Brigadier Corporal, 1st Class with the Eleventy-Eighth US Marine SEAL Ranger Battalion. I've made over a hundred combat jumps into Cleveland, and this was during the time President DeGaulle was publicly claiming that we had no troops deployed to Ohio. Well, it's braised - braised! into my memory.
I could tell you more, stuff that'd turn your hair white, but it's all still classified. Plus, my record is still sealed so you can't look any of it up. In fact, I probably told you too much already. So no offnese if I kill you, okay?
I could tell you more, stuff that'd turn your hair white, but it's all still classified. Plus, my record is still sealed so you can't look any of it up. In fact, I probably told you too much already. So no offnese if I kill you, okay?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 05, 2007 12:33 PM (Srvjc)
103
So if all your supporting evidence is made up, why ought we to believe your claims?
Dear King Dingdong:
I didn't write the Kos diary entry. I'm not presenting any evidence in support of the description that writer gives of the buildup of various US forces. I have, in this thread, called those claims "clearly inaccurate" and "crapola."
Oops. It looks like I just dismantled your strawman. My bad.
So if all your supporting evidence is made up, why ought we to believe your claims?
Dear King Dingdong:
I didn't write the Kos diary entry. I'm not presenting any evidence in support of the description that writer gives of the buildup of various US forces. I have, in this thread, called those claims "clearly inaccurate" and "crapola."
Oops. It looks like I just dismantled your strawman. My bad.
Posted by: nunaim at September 05, 2007 02:37 PM (22/Qe)
104
No, you're the one with the straw man, that being "Why argue about arcane technical details, when the real question is are we going to attack Iran?"
The technical details are what some of us call "facts" and if they are wrong, the there's a good chance that the story is wrong, too. Wrong means "not true."
Yeah, another technical detail. Sorry. But the deal is, if you are going to lie, it has to sound right. This one is fake. Pretending there are some minor technical glitches in the narrative which do not corrode the underlying truth is... well, stupid. Desperately fighting a rearguard action against facts isn't a cunning debate skill, it's delusional tilting at windmills. At least nobody disputed the existence of Don Quixote's windmills, anyway - yours aren't even there to tilt against.
And thanks for the "King Dingdong" slam. Made my day. I haven't been so relentlessly taken down since third grade. Did you just think that one up all on your own, or have you been carrying it around in your hip pocket for years, waiting for the perfect opportunity to use it? Somebody not a moron would conclude that you have lost this argument and have nothing left but name calling. Not you, of course - you'll keep chasing your tail all the while triumphantly claiming you're running rings around everyone else.
If you are about to ripose buy calling me "poopyhead" and claim game, set, match, knock yourself out, big guy.
The technical details are what some of us call "facts" and if they are wrong, the there's a good chance that the story is wrong, too. Wrong means "not true."
Yeah, another technical detail. Sorry. But the deal is, if you are going to lie, it has to sound right. This one is fake. Pretending there are some minor technical glitches in the narrative which do not corrode the underlying truth is... well, stupid. Desperately fighting a rearguard action against facts isn't a cunning debate skill, it's delusional tilting at windmills. At least nobody disputed the existence of Don Quixote's windmills, anyway - yours aren't even there to tilt against.
And thanks for the "King Dingdong" slam. Made my day. I haven't been so relentlessly taken down since third grade. Did you just think that one up all on your own, or have you been carrying it around in your hip pocket for years, waiting for the perfect opportunity to use it? Somebody not a moron would conclude that you have lost this argument and have nothing left but name calling. Not you, of course - you'll keep chasing your tail all the while triumphantly claiming you're running rings around everyone else.
If you are about to ripose buy calling me "poopyhead" and claim game, set, match, knock yourself out, big guy.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 05, 2007 03:42 PM (Hhuia)
105
Pretending there are some minor technical glitches in the narrative which do not corrode the underlying truth is... well, stupid.
The idea that we are gearing up for an attack on Iran has existed for months--long, long before this Kos thing came along. As I mentioned above, this idea can be discussed independently of the Kos diary. Put yet another way, the seeming inevitability of an attack bears no real relationship to the existence of the diary entry.
I know that it's tough to actually read all the entries in a thread, Steve, but if you tried it, we might save ourselves a lot of mindless reiteration. All your cunning little jabs have been jabbed already; all your Larry Lightbulb attacks on my positions have already been launched.
We have, in short, climbed these stairs before.
Pretending there are some minor technical glitches in the narrative which do not corrode the underlying truth is... well, stupid.
The idea that we are gearing up for an attack on Iran has existed for months--long, long before this Kos thing came along. As I mentioned above, this idea can be discussed independently of the Kos diary. Put yet another way, the seeming inevitability of an attack bears no real relationship to the existence of the diary entry.
I know that it's tough to actually read all the entries in a thread, Steve, but if you tried it, we might save ourselves a lot of mindless reiteration. All your cunning little jabs have been jabbed already; all your Larry Lightbulb attacks on my positions have already been launched.
We have, in short, climbed these stairs before.
Posted by: nunaim at September 05, 2007 04:31 PM (22/Qe)
106
nunaim - "Put yet another way, the seeming inevitability of an attack bears no real relationship to the existence of the diary entry."
I agree, to the lefties it's sort of like Jason Leopold's indictment of Karl Rove. It's coming, he swears it's coming. His sources are good. This diary was supposed to reflect a good source to reinforce the meme that Sy Hersh has been pushing for years. It didn't. Leopold's been discredited. When are you guy's going to discredit Hersh or slam him for his lousy track record. It's like an eventual left hand turn, buddy. The turn signal has been on too long. The diary was intended to add urgency to the immenent turn. It turned out to be a fake. When is the eventual turn going to occur now, nunaim, and based on what evidence? Does the left have anything new or just the same old tripe from unnamed sources? See how it works?
If you want to discuss Iran, try somewhere else, don't try to defend a discredited diary that tried to add urgency to the discussion based on a pack of lies. It doesn't cover you in glory or didn't you read your orders from Kos?
I agree, to the lefties it's sort of like Jason Leopold's indictment of Karl Rove. It's coming, he swears it's coming. His sources are good. This diary was supposed to reflect a good source to reinforce the meme that Sy Hersh has been pushing for years. It didn't. Leopold's been discredited. When are you guy's going to discredit Hersh or slam him for his lousy track record. It's like an eventual left hand turn, buddy. The turn signal has been on too long. The diary was intended to add urgency to the immenent turn. It turned out to be a fake. When is the eventual turn going to occur now, nunaim, and based on what evidence? Does the left have anything new or just the same old tripe from unnamed sources? See how it works?
If you want to discuss Iran, try somewhere else, don't try to defend a discredited diary that tried to add urgency to the discussion based on a pack of lies. It doesn't cover you in glory or didn't you read your orders from Kos?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 05, 2007 05:45 PM (0pZel)
107
I see nunaim is still pushing the "fake but accurate" meme, even though he still loudly denies it.
I, personally, would consider him slightly more credible (note: I said slightly) if he'd just admit that's what he's doing, since it's so obvious.
I, personally, would consider him slightly more credible (note: I said slightly) if he'd just admit that's what he's doing, since it's so obvious.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 05, 2007 06:45 PM (viASe)
108
Those damned traitors over at Fox News! Don't they know that this kind of thing makes them look like idiots? I hate the way those guys are always taking their marching orders from Kos.
Posted by: nunaim at September 05, 2007 08:46 PM (PmB8N)
109
nunaim (or whomever is sock puppeting him)... look at the date on that article.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 05, 2007 09:38 PM (viASe)
110
nunaim (or whomever is sock puppeting him)... look at the date on that article.
It's heartwarming when the other side makes your case for you. As long as seven months ago, Fox News was outlining the reasons why there is a widespread perception that we're gearing up for war with Iran--long, long before the Kos thing.
Fox: "fake but accurate"?
nunaim (or whomever is sock puppeting him)... look at the date on that article.
It's heartwarming when the other side makes your case for you. As long as seven months ago, Fox News was outlining the reasons why there is a widespread perception that we're gearing up for war with Iran--long, long before the Kos thing.
Fox: "fake but accurate"?
Posted by: nunaim at September 06, 2007 10:27 AM (22/Qe)
111
nun, there has been "discussions" about whether the US is going to invade Iran, and if we should. That isn't being disputed. What is being disputed is the notion that the attack is imminent, that someone acting as an LSO on a carrier would be privy to that info, and that there is widespread anger among servicemen and women toward Bush.
Posted by: TomB at September 08, 2007 02:30 PM (QrRlV)
August 31, 2007
Images Redacted
Brian De Palma is tediously consistent if nothing else.
His Vietnam war fiction "Casualties of War" portrayed American soldiers as rapist thugs merely bidding their time for the opportunity to commit inhuman acts against a bucolic population. Unlike "Casualties," which was filmed decades after the war in Southeast Asia, De Palma's new film, "Redacted" is an admitted attempt by De Palma to sway world opinion against Americans soldiers while they are actively engaged in combat.As noted above, De Palma's film is propaganda to which he proudly admits:
A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears. "Redacted," by U.S. director Brian De Palma, is one of at least eight American films on the war in Iraq due for release in the next few months and the first of two movies on the conflict screening in Venice's main competition. Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it is a harrowing indictment of the conflict and spares the audience no brutality to get its message across. De Palma, 66, whose "Casualties of War" in 1989 told a similar tale of abuse by American soldiers in Vietnam, makes no secret of the goal he is hoping to achieve with the film's images, all based on real material he found on the Internet. "The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening. "The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.
I wonder how this country would have responded if Director John Ford had released a film showing American servicemen raping and killing an innocent Japanese girl in 1943 and murdering her family, instead of the propaganda film December 7. In 1944, Ford was a commander in the USNR, and watched the June 6, 1944 invasion of Normandy from the USS Plunkett as the destroyer screened troop transports off Omaha Beach, and later landed on sands tinged red with the blood of American soldiers. To this day, most of the film Ford's team of combat cameramen shot on "Bloody Omaha" has never been seen. One may wonder how De Palma would have reacted in such a setting. Would his reaction have been to have noted the sacrifice of America's soldiers, or to vilify them for shooting fair-haired soldiers of the Wehrmacht as their lines collapsed and were overrun? It seems almost certain that if De Palma covered the battle for Okinawa in 1945, his predilection for vilifying the American military would no doubt have led him to tell the story of the noble schoolteacher who led her classroom of children over the cliffs to their deaths at Humeyuri-no-to, and the bloodthirsty Marines they escaped from into death. Of course, De Palma isn't making movies during World War Two vilifying America’s soldiers; he's making movies during a current war vilifying Americans soldiers. What would once have been quickly identified as treasonous or seditious in past conflicts is now something that appears to be quite fashionable among certain aspects of our society. De Palma and like-minded souls in Venice, Cannes, and Santa Barbara, of course, feel brave for making a film that portrays the young Midwestern privates and southern specialists and street-smart second lieutenants from Jersey on the frontlines as savages, capable and yearning to unleash unbearable cruelty. As sweat drips in the eyes of soldiers and Marines as they attempt to bring peace to a land that has rarely known it, their enemies will be watching pirated and crudely-dubbed bootlegs of Redacted in training camps in Syria, in mosques in Saudi Arabia, and in homes throughout the Arab world, who already take a suspicious view of the American soldier in Iraq. We will not see the pictures that would actually win the war, of an Iraqi father wrapping his arms around a suicide bomber to keep him from entering a mosque, or of the Iraqi interpreter who proudly dreams of becoming an American Marine. We won't see American ssaving Iraqi lives, or Iraqis saving American lives, or the brutality of those we fight. Those, you see, are the pictures that Brian de Palma has redacted.
"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.
Blast From the Past: I'd almost forgotten. Venice was a pretty smart choice for De Palma, as the Italians have quite the fetish for dishonest anti-war propaganda.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:20 PM | Comments (56) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Is it just me or does DePalma have a penchant for films involving the rape of young girls. I bet poor John Ford is turning over in his grave.
Posted by: Tarheel at August 31, 2007 02:18 PM (5EyBQ)
2
shooting fair-haired soldiers of the Wehrmacht as their lines collapsed and were overrun?
or
rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family
...And you righties are always spluttering and mewling about your problems with the perceived "moral equivalency" practiced by the left. Putting these two situations on equal footing is disgusting.
shooting fair-haired soldiers of the Wehrmacht as their lines collapsed and were overrun?
or
rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family
...And you righties are always spluttering and mewling about your problems with the perceived "moral equivalency" practiced by the left. Putting these two situations on equal footing is disgusting.
Posted by: nunaim at August 31, 2007 02:39 PM (22/Qe)
3
It's despicable to see what De Palma is doing. It's totally irresponsible and only for political gain on his own part. He would be happy if we left now, Al Qaeda moved back in killed and terrorized the iraqi people with their taliban style rule.
What he's doing is sick and wrong.
What he's doing is sick and wrong.
Posted by: john at August 31, 2007 02:53 PM (1RKaX)
Posted by: Dave at August 31, 2007 03:11 PM (38EUg)
5
Ah liberals.
Always the humanists.
Out of the 1000s of atrocities committed in Iraq on a daily basis- the mass murders, the car bombs, the assassinations, the rapes, the beheadings, the tortures, the 10s of thousands slaughtered by jihadis and ex-baathist thugs,
Only when the atrocity is done by an AMERICAN SOLDIER does it get his attention, and justify dumping millions into a feature film
Yeah, he cares about Iraqis.
His selective outrage is laughable if it wasnt disgusting
He isnt against America. He's for the other side.
Always the humanists.
Out of the 1000s of atrocities committed in Iraq on a daily basis- the mass murders, the car bombs, the assassinations, the rapes, the beheadings, the tortures, the 10s of thousands slaughtered by jihadis and ex-baathist thugs,
Only when the atrocity is done by an AMERICAN SOLDIER does it get his attention, and justify dumping millions into a feature film
Yeah, he cares about Iraqis.
His selective outrage is laughable if it wasnt disgusting
He isnt against America. He's for the other side.
Posted by: TMF at August 31, 2007 04:30 PM (+Ac3z)
6
Dave,
Don't forget the mega-hit, "Bonfire of the vanities"
Don't forget the mega-hit, "Bonfire of the vanities"
Posted by: Brad at August 31, 2007 05:55 PM (DMnkh)
7
You mean you'd rather cover it up? Hide the fact that real justice was doled out in American courts for these heinous crimes? One soldier got 100 years, one 90 years, Steven D. Green, the ring leader may get the death penalty.
Why wouldn't you want that broadcast far and wide?
Why wouldn't you want that broadcast far and wide?
Posted by: markg8 at August 31, 2007 06:45 PM (7xxF4)
8
I totally agree with TMF... My padna Lil Country and Me witnessed the day they dumped the decapitated body of that Korean Student on Route Irish that the insurgents had offed. they didn't even have the decency of dumping his squash with his carcass... just a jumpsuited body sans casaba.
This being ONE of DOZENS of innocent-murdered bodies we saw during a 22 month tour. NO MENTION by the "Bleeding Hearts" of the constant infliction of violence on the Innocents by the REAL Bad Guys but a constant harping on our US Troops. This leads me to my next thing:
I Have a THEORY: Its a odd one, but roll with me on this for a second. I've noticed an ever increasing trend that has YET to be picked up by ANY media source or even anyone else that I can tell.
Having said that, I have noticed an increase in denial of their aging by the "Baby Boomer Generation" which happens to be the majority of the scum-sucking 1960's anti-Vietnam War peaceniks.
This include my own parents. They are constantly trying to "Live Younger" and "Act Young" on a regular basis. Isn't it true that the Mass Media regularly dump stories on us on how "Young" the current crop of 59 to 65'ers are? How they are 'extending their lives' and all that crap? Look at the number of ads and drugs that are being pushed with the idea of 'living longer' and all that jazz...
Is it possible we are seeing a MAJOR resurgence in anti-military/anti-war behavior because of these sorry 'people' are intent on "Recapturing Their Youth" and "Leaving ANOTHER Mark for Another Generation by stopping THIS war"?
Does this have more to do with the DENIAL of the fact that they are a bunch of sorry retreads who learned the hard way that they were WRONG about Vietnam and that they are setting themselves up for future failure? Add on that in their self centered minds "THIS TIME WE'RE RIGHT!!!!"
Who do they think is going to be taking care of their wrinkled butts in another 20 years? Do they have any concept of this? My thoughts are NO. Its been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Post WW2 Generation... those of the '60's Lovefest' are the most self center egocentric and completely spoiled rotten group to have ever had the unfortunate situation of having been spawned. Because of their "Me-me-me-me-me" Selfishness and the denial of "Aging Gracefully" they are setting us up for failures that they themselves won't live to see. Islam-America anyone? Among the leftists and retreads.. do the see this as a possibility? Nah... No Hope for them... If you think I'm wrong... just look at the "Usual Suspects" out there who are either 'trying' or 'doing' in playing a role in the Anti-War (bowel)Movements:
Hanoi Jane Fonda
John "5 1/2 Months Incountry" Kerry
John "EX-Marine" Murtha
Ralph "Sunbeam" Nader
Justin Raimondo
Cindy Sheehan
and a host of others...all 60's and wannabe retreads.
And for those of you who wish to argue that the youth of America are involved as well:
The Younger Generation in College right now are being taught by what has been referred to as the Most Leftist Group of Professors this side of Joseph Stalin. And for this, I offer, my Dad has been a Professor in the state he calls the Peoples Socialist Republic of Massachusetts for 25 years... I know how bad it is... it's part of why he retired this year... anyways
nuff said... let the flames begin!
This being ONE of DOZENS of innocent-murdered bodies we saw during a 22 month tour. NO MENTION by the "Bleeding Hearts" of the constant infliction of violence on the Innocents by the REAL Bad Guys but a constant harping on our US Troops. This leads me to my next thing:
I Have a THEORY: Its a odd one, but roll with me on this for a second. I've noticed an ever increasing trend that has YET to be picked up by ANY media source or even anyone else that I can tell.
Having said that, I have noticed an increase in denial of their aging by the "Baby Boomer Generation" which happens to be the majority of the scum-sucking 1960's anti-Vietnam War peaceniks.
This include my own parents. They are constantly trying to "Live Younger" and "Act Young" on a regular basis. Isn't it true that the Mass Media regularly dump stories on us on how "Young" the current crop of 59 to 65'ers are? How they are 'extending their lives' and all that crap? Look at the number of ads and drugs that are being pushed with the idea of 'living longer' and all that jazz...
Is it possible we are seeing a MAJOR resurgence in anti-military/anti-war behavior because of these sorry 'people' are intent on "Recapturing Their Youth" and "Leaving ANOTHER Mark for Another Generation by stopping THIS war"?
Does this have more to do with the DENIAL of the fact that they are a bunch of sorry retreads who learned the hard way that they were WRONG about Vietnam and that they are setting themselves up for future failure? Add on that in their self centered minds "THIS TIME WE'RE RIGHT!!!!"
Who do they think is going to be taking care of their wrinkled butts in another 20 years? Do they have any concept of this? My thoughts are NO. Its been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Post WW2 Generation... those of the '60's Lovefest' are the most self center egocentric and completely spoiled rotten group to have ever had the unfortunate situation of having been spawned. Because of their "Me-me-me-me-me" Selfishness and the denial of "Aging Gracefully" they are setting us up for failures that they themselves won't live to see. Islam-America anyone? Among the leftists and retreads.. do the see this as a possibility? Nah... No Hope for them... If you think I'm wrong... just look at the "Usual Suspects" out there who are either 'trying' or 'doing' in playing a role in the Anti-War (bowel)Movements:
Hanoi Jane Fonda
John "5 1/2 Months Incountry" Kerry
John "EX-Marine" Murtha
Ralph "Sunbeam" Nader
Justin Raimondo
Cindy Sheehan
and a host of others...all 60's and wannabe retreads.
And for those of you who wish to argue that the youth of America are involved as well:
The Younger Generation in College right now are being taught by what has been referred to as the Most Leftist Group of Professors this side of Joseph Stalin. And for this, I offer, my Dad has been a Professor in the state he calls the Peoples Socialist Republic of Massachusetts for 25 years... I know how bad it is... it's part of why he retired this year... anyways
nuff said... let the flames begin!
Posted by: Big Country at August 31, 2007 06:53 PM (q7b5Y)
9
Only when the atrocity is done by an AMERICAN SOLDIER does it get his attention
NO MENTION by the "Bleeding Hearts" of the constant infliction of violence on the Innocents by the REAL Bad Guys but a constant harping on our US Troops.
First: we're supposed to be the good guys, you fools. Are you seriously proposing that we judge our own behavior against the behavior of terrorists? As long we're not as bad as they are, then everything's cool?
Second: Our military presumably has the power to control the behavior of our soldiers, so it makes sense to complain about something that we can, at least nominally, have some influence over.
Duh.
Only when the atrocity is done by an AMERICAN SOLDIER does it get his attention
NO MENTION by the "Bleeding Hearts" of the constant infliction of violence on the Innocents by the REAL Bad Guys but a constant harping on our US Troops.
First: we're supposed to be the good guys, you fools. Are you seriously proposing that we judge our own behavior against the behavior of terrorists? As long we're not as bad as they are, then everything's cool?
Second: Our military presumably has the power to control the behavior of our soldiers, so it makes sense to complain about something that we can, at least nominally, have some influence over.
Duh.
Posted by: nunaim at August 31, 2007 07:17 PM (OJvAD)
10
nunaim:
The concept of "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" went out the door years ago with "White Hats" and "Black Hats." Unfortunately its the fact of life. The fact that we haven't gone completely apeshit and done what really needs to be done shows the US Militarys restraint.
As suggested by my 'Fixer' (who thankfully I helped get out of Baghdad before the place became a TOTAL cesspool), he had his own ideas.
Mohammned told me (and he's a devout Shiite) that if we, the American and Coalition forces really wanted to stop the uprising and insurgency, his advice was that every single mullah who was publically speaking out against the Coalition be graphically and publically executed and their bodies be left in the streets as a warning to others.
Doing this he said would have prevented 95% of the violence that has since been perpetrated. The Iraqis he explained to me only respect strength and terror, and not necessarily in that order. Saddam for all his insanity understood the fracteous nature and basic tribalism of the people here, and stamped down accordingly.
Unfortunately or Fortunately, we as Americans prefer to approach things with a "nice guy approach." It's what gets our teeth kicked in every time. Nice Guys and Leftist finish last... reality is peace comes from a barrel of a gun, not from vacuous wishful thinking.
The concept of "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" went out the door years ago with "White Hats" and "Black Hats." Unfortunately its the fact of life. The fact that we haven't gone completely apeshit and done what really needs to be done shows the US Militarys restraint.
As suggested by my 'Fixer' (who thankfully I helped get out of Baghdad before the place became a TOTAL cesspool), he had his own ideas.
Mohammned told me (and he's a devout Shiite) that if we, the American and Coalition forces really wanted to stop the uprising and insurgency, his advice was that every single mullah who was publically speaking out against the Coalition be graphically and publically executed and their bodies be left in the streets as a warning to others.
Doing this he said would have prevented 95% of the violence that has since been perpetrated. The Iraqis he explained to me only respect strength and terror, and not necessarily in that order. Saddam for all his insanity understood the fracteous nature and basic tribalism of the people here, and stamped down accordingly.
Unfortunately or Fortunately, we as Americans prefer to approach things with a "nice guy approach." It's what gets our teeth kicked in every time. Nice Guys and Leftist finish last... reality is peace comes from a barrel of a gun, not from vacuous wishful thinking.
Posted by: Big Country at August 31, 2007 07:56 PM (q7b5Y)
11
No one forgives the rape and murder of a girl and her family--and the individuals involved were prosecuted because in fact we are the good guys--or at least keep our soldiers under more control than most other armies.
Nunaim goes into paroxysms of liberal guilt and angst. I suppose if it makes him or her feel better that's okay. In the meantime, Nunaim should get out of the way of the serious people and sit off in a corner somewhere nursing his/her aganst.
Nunaim goes into paroxysms of liberal guilt and angst. I suppose if it makes him or her feel better that's okay. In the meantime, Nunaim should get out of the way of the serious people and sit off in a corner somewhere nursing his/her aganst.
Posted by: Mike Myers at August 31, 2007 08:42 PM (774Bg)
12
Geez nunaim, even if we can't control the real bad guys in Iraq, how come we can't talk about them on TV or in the press in this country. TV shows about radical Islam get censored or cancelled, articles get spiked, Reuters doesn't even have the word terrorist in their lexicon (admittedely they're not U.S.). If we can talk about the bad deeds of the goog guys, why is there an embargo on a discussion of the bad deeds of the bad guys?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 31, 2007 11:47 PM (0pZel)
13
"Our military presumably has the power to control the behavior of our soldiers, so it makes sense to complain about something that we can, at least nominally, have some influence over."
What are you thinking we should "complain about?" Do you think that the military could have prevented this? Do you think that the military somehow enabled this? Do you think that the military didn't prosecute this?
If, in fact, DePalma's point is to help prevent these sorts of atrocities in the future, then I'm guessing that the main focus of the movie would be on the heroes in the military justice system, who investigated this horrific act, prosecuted these animals, and sentenced them to terms long enough so that most of them won't be seeing the outside of a jail cell until well after their 100th birthdays.
Somehow, I'm skeptical that that is, in fact, the focus.
Especially since DePalma says that his intention is to "use the pictures to stop the war." The pictures can only do that if he is somehow claiming that it's the war itself, i.e. the US military, that is responsible for this rape/murder. That, in other words, these sorts of things are a consequence of "Bush's War," rather than the horrendous acts of individuals, and that, therefore, the individuals who committed this crime are somehow, themselves, victims of the evil military, or the evil administration.
Crimes like these cannot be 100% prevented in any instance, under any circumstance, civilian or military. With more than 1 million troops having been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan (http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/), a few really sick, twisted animals must be among the bunch, no matter how well screened and trained they are. So, in other words, if Bush hadn't sent these individuals to Iraq, there's no reason to doubt that they would have committed this or a similar act in Germany, or Okinawa, or Cleveland, or wherever they would otherwise have been living. Would it still have been worth making a movie about?
What are you thinking we should "complain about?" Do you think that the military could have prevented this? Do you think that the military somehow enabled this? Do you think that the military didn't prosecute this?
If, in fact, DePalma's point is to help prevent these sorts of atrocities in the future, then I'm guessing that the main focus of the movie would be on the heroes in the military justice system, who investigated this horrific act, prosecuted these animals, and sentenced them to terms long enough so that most of them won't be seeing the outside of a jail cell until well after their 100th birthdays.
Somehow, I'm skeptical that that is, in fact, the focus.
Especially since DePalma says that his intention is to "use the pictures to stop the war." The pictures can only do that if he is somehow claiming that it's the war itself, i.e. the US military, that is responsible for this rape/murder. That, in other words, these sorts of things are a consequence of "Bush's War," rather than the horrendous acts of individuals, and that, therefore, the individuals who committed this crime are somehow, themselves, victims of the evil military, or the evil administration.
Crimes like these cannot be 100% prevented in any instance, under any circumstance, civilian or military. With more than 1 million troops having been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan (http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/), a few really sick, twisted animals must be among the bunch, no matter how well screened and trained they are. So, in other words, if Bush hadn't sent these individuals to Iraq, there's no reason to doubt that they would have committed this or a similar act in Germany, or Okinawa, or Cleveland, or wherever they would otherwise have been living. Would it still have been worth making a movie about?
Posted by: notropis at September 01, 2007 12:10 AM (zr8/n)
14
The pictures are what will stop the war
If only it were so! Quite to the contrary the most the pictures can accomplish is to end the U. S. involvement in the war. 90% of the casualties and 99.9% of the atrocities have been perpetrated by people who aren't Americans.
There are people of good will who honestly believe that the entirety of what's going on is a “war of national liberation” and that when the Americans leave, the war will end. I respectfully disagree and suggest that this scenario corresponds to no credible theory of human behavior. If the Americans leave before the war is over, the war will go on merrily without them. There just won't be anybody in Iraq with the will or ability to prevent the worst possible effects from taking place.
The pictures are what will stop the war
If only it were so! Quite to the contrary the most the pictures can accomplish is to end the U. S. involvement in the war. 90% of the casualties and 99.9% of the atrocities have been perpetrated by people who aren't Americans.
There are people of good will who honestly believe that the entirety of what's going on is a “war of national liberation” and that when the Americans leave, the war will end. I respectfully disagree and suggest that this scenario corresponds to no credible theory of human behavior. If the Americans leave before the war is over, the war will go on merrily without them. There just won't be anybody in Iraq with the will or ability to prevent the worst possible effects from taking place.
Posted by: Dave Schuler at September 01, 2007 08:03 AM (Umeaf)
15
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/01/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
Posted by: David M at September 01, 2007 08:12 AM (oY9D3)
16
Brian DePalma is another burned out 1960s hippie. The irony here is that if there were a Teheran Film Festival, he would be hiding in a loft in Fresno, the subject of a fatwa.
Posted by: arch at September 01, 2007 09:22 AM (T4pTu)
17
Ever heard of paragraphs? Of course I shouldn't expect much from a vicious military hater like yourself.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 01, 2007 01:36 PM (wUvEV)
18
I wish I could write this up well. I tried blogging it, but lost the train of thought...Here is the pot shot version:
Do you remember the big debate around 9/11 2002 about not showing the images of the planes flying into the towers or the towers coming down on the anniversary of the attacks?
They were "too traumatic" and it was better for our Western society to gain some closure, and not further demonize all Muslims, by showing those images again. And we didn't.
Now, we have Opus cartoons taking shots at radical Islamicists needing to be censored in order to not demonize, radical Islamicists? oh, no, just don't use the radicals to demonize all Muslims.
Using a few GIs to demonize the US military and ultimately the foundations of Western society, OK....that is progressive.....but not the Other...
I know I've lost a lot of people with the "foundations of Western society" bit, but it does fit together.
How many movies have come out about 9/11? Big block buster movies? Movies with the intense thriller aspects and expert, best of Hollywood direction along the lines of Spielburg's Munich???
8 anti-Iraq War II films in the pipe, but I guess stories about the carrying out of the 9/11 attacks or the horrific terror and agonizing deaths on 9/11/2001 aren't compelling enough......or maybe Hollywood cares so much about that event, they are waiting for something like the 10th anniversary to really pay tribute to the events of that day....
Getting the anti-Iraq War II stuff out is just easier and makes more sense...somehow...while holding back on 9/11 material also...somehow makes sense.
It is the same kind of sense that has movies like The Good Shepard made. Not too much of an overly political movie, but it has threads that tie it to the bigger picture - which is connected to why anti-war movies are the vogue and 9/11 movies are not....
A few times in De Niro's movie, they mention that fearful organizations like the CIA need (to manufacture fake) enemies to justify their power (and the bad things they do with it)...
He also had a scene that gave the argument that the Soviets were a hollow, rotting mammoth that "was never a threat, is not a threat, will never be a threat....."
The movie makers and we know that the rotting, bloated giant part turned out to be true, but not only did it not seem that way back then.....if you look at North Korea today....you can see how even an already collapsed, tiny state can.....still offer a terrible threat of doom due to its military size and the weapons it possess....Could the Soviet's have ever defeated the Allies? Were they ever strong enough to give it a go? It is immaterial when considering whether the threat was real or not. NK can't win a war, but it can still rain down hell on 10 million South Koreans alone living in Seoul....
But, these De Niro items in The Good Shepard are part of a trend that has been going on since before the end of the Cold War....and the objective is the same as De Palma and Hollywood on Iraq War II today AND their objective in avoiding stoking patrioticism-demonizing Muslims by not making 9/11 movies or movies that portray US soldiers in a good light....
As the Cold War was still going on, and since, segments of our society, mainly the intelligencia, have tried hard to down play the ill in the Others and play up the ills (real and imagined) in our own Western world.....
Look at the references to Dresden and fire bombing of Tokyo in literature and movies.....Try a movie I recently watched.....The Map of the Heart....
And on the flip side, I read recently, though I don't know the validity of the reporting, that the Brits are cutting out Churchill in new history textbooks to make room for other material.....but at the same time......Hitler and Nazi Germany is getting some "different perspectives" put in to help de-demonize the English view of Germans and Germany as a nation......
What we have here is the same battle going on for the hearts and minds of members of Western society.
The same battle that went on early in the 20th Century --- the battle to overcome the evils of capitalism and capitalistic society.
Is this the same as calling all these guys "communists" as we saw in the Cold War ideological battles?
No. At least the people that were openly leftists back then had an ideology they believed in...
Today.....we have the same types of people, even in some cases the same people, fighting the good fight.....they just lost any sense of an alternative with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of any hint of the Soviet-way as a viable alternative....
Today....the best they can do is Global Warming...
I know this all sounds far fetched...but think about it....
De Caprio (sp?) comes out with a GW movie and Hollywood wants to make Gore a secular saint. Big business is a constant target of the intelligencia and the pseudo-intellectuals of pop culture. And they also happen to have just pumped out a string of anti-war movies during a presidential election cycle.....
These are the same groups of people who argued the Soviets (and even the likes of North Korea) were viable alternatives to Western ills back in the day....
I mean, these are the same guys and girls who fawn over Michael Moore for going to Cuba to rave about its health care system.......
The desire is the same......they have been trying to bring about a reformation of Western society.
They do so by playing up its faults.
"Deconstructing" its "supposed" good qualities.
And by defending and shielding its enemies in various ways.
That is why Dresden naturally comes to mind for them when thinking about WWII (and not saving the world from fascism)....
That is why movies about Iraq War II demonizing American soldiers and Western governments is the right thing to do ---- and not movies about 9/11...
Do you remember the big debate around 9/11 2002 about not showing the images of the planes flying into the towers or the towers coming down on the anniversary of the attacks?
They were "too traumatic" and it was better for our Western society to gain some closure, and not further demonize all Muslims, by showing those images again. And we didn't.
Now, we have Opus cartoons taking shots at radical Islamicists needing to be censored in order to not demonize, radical Islamicists? oh, no, just don't use the radicals to demonize all Muslims.
Using a few GIs to demonize the US military and ultimately the foundations of Western society, OK....that is progressive.....but not the Other...
I know I've lost a lot of people with the "foundations of Western society" bit, but it does fit together.
How many movies have come out about 9/11? Big block buster movies? Movies with the intense thriller aspects and expert, best of Hollywood direction along the lines of Spielburg's Munich???
8 anti-Iraq War II films in the pipe, but I guess stories about the carrying out of the 9/11 attacks or the horrific terror and agonizing deaths on 9/11/2001 aren't compelling enough......or maybe Hollywood cares so much about that event, they are waiting for something like the 10th anniversary to really pay tribute to the events of that day....
Getting the anti-Iraq War II stuff out is just easier and makes more sense...somehow...while holding back on 9/11 material also...somehow makes sense.
It is the same kind of sense that has movies like The Good Shepard made. Not too much of an overly political movie, but it has threads that tie it to the bigger picture - which is connected to why anti-war movies are the vogue and 9/11 movies are not....
A few times in De Niro's movie, they mention that fearful organizations like the CIA need (to manufacture fake) enemies to justify their power (and the bad things they do with it)...
He also had a scene that gave the argument that the Soviets were a hollow, rotting mammoth that "was never a threat, is not a threat, will never be a threat....."
The movie makers and we know that the rotting, bloated giant part turned out to be true, but not only did it not seem that way back then.....if you look at North Korea today....you can see how even an already collapsed, tiny state can.....still offer a terrible threat of doom due to its military size and the weapons it possess....Could the Soviet's have ever defeated the Allies? Were they ever strong enough to give it a go? It is immaterial when considering whether the threat was real or not. NK can't win a war, but it can still rain down hell on 10 million South Koreans alone living in Seoul....
But, these De Niro items in The Good Shepard are part of a trend that has been going on since before the end of the Cold War....and the objective is the same as De Palma and Hollywood on Iraq War II today AND their objective in avoiding stoking patrioticism-demonizing Muslims by not making 9/11 movies or movies that portray US soldiers in a good light....
As the Cold War was still going on, and since, segments of our society, mainly the intelligencia, have tried hard to down play the ill in the Others and play up the ills (real and imagined) in our own Western world.....
Look at the references to Dresden and fire bombing of Tokyo in literature and movies.....Try a movie I recently watched.....The Map of the Heart....
And on the flip side, I read recently, though I don't know the validity of the reporting, that the Brits are cutting out Churchill in new history textbooks to make room for other material.....but at the same time......Hitler and Nazi Germany is getting some "different perspectives" put in to help de-demonize the English view of Germans and Germany as a nation......
What we have here is the same battle going on for the hearts and minds of members of Western society.
The same battle that went on early in the 20th Century --- the battle to overcome the evils of capitalism and capitalistic society.
Is this the same as calling all these guys "communists" as we saw in the Cold War ideological battles?
No. At least the people that were openly leftists back then had an ideology they believed in...
Today.....we have the same types of people, even in some cases the same people, fighting the good fight.....they just lost any sense of an alternative with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of any hint of the Soviet-way as a viable alternative....
Today....the best they can do is Global Warming...
I know this all sounds far fetched...but think about it....
De Caprio (sp?) comes out with a GW movie and Hollywood wants to make Gore a secular saint. Big business is a constant target of the intelligencia and the pseudo-intellectuals of pop culture. And they also happen to have just pumped out a string of anti-war movies during a presidential election cycle.....
These are the same groups of people who argued the Soviets (and even the likes of North Korea) were viable alternatives to Western ills back in the day....
I mean, these are the same guys and girls who fawn over Michael Moore for going to Cuba to rave about its health care system.......
The desire is the same......they have been trying to bring about a reformation of Western society.
They do so by playing up its faults.
"Deconstructing" its "supposed" good qualities.
And by defending and shielding its enemies in various ways.
That is why Dresden naturally comes to mind for them when thinking about WWII (and not saving the world from fascism)....
That is why movies about Iraq War II demonizing American soldiers and Western governments is the right thing to do ---- and not movies about 9/11...
Posted by: usinkorea at September 01, 2007 04:23 PM (3mK4l)
19
"The Map of the Heart" should be "Map of the Human Heart" and the line about Michael Moore should have emphasized that these groups are STILL going to communist dictatorships to recuperate their image...
Posted by: usinkorea at September 01, 2007 04:30 PM (3mK4l)
20
"Quite to the contrary the most the pictures can accomplish is to end the U. S. involvement in the war. 90% of the casualties and 99.9% of the atrocities have been perpetrated by people who aren't Americans."
So true, and thanks for the correction/clarification to my post.
So true, and thanks for the correction/clarification to my post.
Posted by: notropis at September 01, 2007 05:26 PM (zr8/n)
21
He was one stoned slacker; Jeff Piccoli from Texas, not representative of the overwhelming
majority of US soldiers in Afghanistan 0r Iraq.
(Interestingly; Sean Penn friend to the Iranian mullahs, Katrina grandstander, and friend of Hugo
Chavez; was in "Casualties of War"
majority of US soldiers in Afghanistan 0r Iraq.
(Interestingly; Sean Penn friend to the Iranian mullahs, Katrina grandstander, and friend of Hugo
Chavez; was in "Casualties of War"
Posted by: narciso at September 01, 2007 06:27 PM (DMnkh)
22
Why wouldn't you want that broadcast far and wide?
De Palma will have to omit the final act, because it would let the air out of the rest.
A proper documentary would necessarily include the trials and sentencing. He's not making a documentary though and has made no mention of including the trials and sentencing.
De Palma will have to omit the final act, because it would let the air out of the rest.
A proper documentary would necessarily include the trials and sentencing. He's not making a documentary though and has made no mention of including the trials and sentencing.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 01, 2007 10:44 PM (NiDeC)
23
De Palma will have to omit the final act, because it would let the air out of the rest.
Your reasoning doesn't make sense; the trial and sentencing would underscore the absolute wrongness of what he did.
De Palma will have to omit the final act, because it would let the air out of the rest.
Your reasoning doesn't make sense; the trial and sentencing would underscore the absolute wrongness of what he did.
Posted by: nunaim at September 02, 2007 07:53 AM (0K/xd)
24
Guys:
Keep up the good work! Nobody has noticed one of my movies for over ten years. If you keep hacking away at it, you might just give me enough publicity to make this sucker break even.
Keep up the good work! Nobody has noticed one of my movies for over ten years. If you keep hacking away at it, you might just give me enough publicity to make this sucker break even.
Posted by: Brian De Palma at September 02, 2007 07:56 AM (0K/xd)
25
Well, if were going to use the actions of a very, very tiny, insignificant minority to smear an entire group/policy, I guess we can do an movie on mistress murdering drunk Teddy Kennedy as a commentary on all liberal Democrats.
Posted by: TMF at September 02, 2007 12:06 PM (+Ac3z)
26
Or a movie on philandering, perjuring, lying to the face of the American people, justice obstructing William Clinton as a commentary on Hillary.
You get the picture
These guys did a horrible thing- the type of thing, sadly, that happens with similar frequency amongst the civilian population here in the US every day.
This movie is a piece of propagandist garbage that would make DePalmas proteges in the SS proud.
You get the picture
These guys did a horrible thing- the type of thing, sadly, that happens with similar frequency amongst the civilian population here in the US every day.
This movie is a piece of propagandist garbage that would make DePalmas proteges in the SS proud.
Posted by: TMF at September 02, 2007 12:08 PM (+Ac3z)
27
I guess we can do an movie on mistress murdering drunk Teddy Kennedy as a commentary on all liberal Democrats....Or a movie on philandering, perjuring, lying to the face of the American people, justice obstructing William Clinton
Go for it, dude! If the Lewinsky BJ scene is graphic enough, I may even buy a ticket.
I guess we can do an movie on mistress murdering drunk Teddy Kennedy as a commentary on all liberal Democrats....Or a movie on philandering, perjuring, lying to the face of the American people, justice obstructing William Clinton
Go for it, dude! If the Lewinsky BJ scene is graphic enough, I may even buy a ticket.
Posted by: nunaim at September 02, 2007 02:46 PM (0K/xd)
28
I do not believe Americans are free to say and do whatever they want. The thought of anarchy in a system of law in contradictory. War is hell, and war is ugly. America and England have gone far beyond any normal call for civility during war, investigating everything. When will the propagandists be held accountable? When will the American people demand this garbage stop?
Posted by: Mekan at September 02, 2007 04:09 PM (mzFPd)
29
Confederate Yankee, you refer to Casualties of War as "fiction."
You might want to rethink that charge. The rape-murder portrayed in Casualties of War most certainly took place in 1966 during a five-man recon patrol mounted by a battalion from the 1st Cavalry Division.
Now, I'll grant that the movie version is overly dramatic and involves much more combat than actually occurred during the incident in question.
I'll also grant that the rape-murder portrayed in Casualties of War cannot stand as a representational portrait of the American grunt in Vietnam. Certainly, such incidents were few and far between.
But there is no doubt that rape-murders did take place during the war, and the one portrayed in Casualties of War is based on actual court-martial testimony and interviews with the one soldier of five who refused to participate.
In other words, you use the word "fiction" in a most disingenuous manner.
You might want to rethink that charge. The rape-murder portrayed in Casualties of War most certainly took place in 1966 during a five-man recon patrol mounted by a battalion from the 1st Cavalry Division.
Now, I'll grant that the movie version is overly dramatic and involves much more combat than actually occurred during the incident in question.
I'll also grant that the rape-murder portrayed in Casualties of War cannot stand as a representational portrait of the American grunt in Vietnam. Certainly, such incidents were few and far between.
But there is no doubt that rape-murders did take place during the war, and the one portrayed in Casualties of War is based on actual court-martial testimony and interviews with the one soldier of five who refused to participate.
In other words, you use the word "fiction" in a most disingenuous manner.
Posted by: PITA at September 02, 2007 05:19 PM (2MwpW)
30
At least "Casualties of War" had a trial.
Posted by: davod at September 03, 2007 01:28 PM (llh3A)
31
De Palma will omit the "final act", i.e., the trial and imprisonment of the perpetrators, because that would nullify the entire purpose of the movie-- to demonize the U.S. military. Which means he is a propagandist for the enemy of the lowest order. In WW2 he would have been prosecuted for sedition and shot for treason. But that was before our country became infested with Liberals. They will be the downfall of America. They are the barbarians within the gates.
Posted by: Carlos at September 03, 2007 01:39 PM (z1gkf)
32
DePalma certainly included the trial and imprisonment of the offenders in his previous Casualties of War..... a movie which CY still seems to consider "fiction."
Posted by: PITA at September 03, 2007 09:49 PM (2MwpW)
33
Hmmmm.
What's worse is that this is supposed to be a documentary/fiction. Which means that they'll include just enough fact to make it somewhat credible but then blow it up as much as possible.
And that Mark Cuban is involved is something of a disgrace as well.
What's worse is that this is supposed to be a documentary/fiction. Which means that they'll include just enough fact to make it somewhat credible but then blow it up as much as possible.
And that Mark Cuban is involved is something of a disgrace as well.
Posted by: memomachine at September 04, 2007 10:55 AM (3pvQO)
34
Confederate Yankee, do you mind if I ask for a third time why you refer to Casualties of War as "fiction," when, in fact, the rape-murder portrayed took place in November of '66, and was carried out by four of five members of a recon patrol from the 1st Cavalry Division?
That fifth member of the patrol who refused to participate in the rape-murder, and who was ignored by the chain of command when he tried to report the incident, and who was immediately transferred out of his rifle company (for fear his comrades might retaliate against such a "gook-lover") also saw several other atrocities committed by his fellow grunts during other patrols. He also saw evidence of Viet Cong atrocities against civilians.
All of this was documented decades ago in the book Casualties of War by Daniel Lang.
Why do you pretend otherwise?
That fifth member of the patrol who refused to participate in the rape-murder, and who was ignored by the chain of command when he tried to report the incident, and who was immediately transferred out of his rifle company (for fear his comrades might retaliate against such a "gook-lover") also saw several other atrocities committed by his fellow grunts during other patrols. He also saw evidence of Viet Cong atrocities against civilians.
All of this was documented decades ago in the book Casualties of War by Daniel Lang.
Why do you pretend otherwise?
Posted by: PITA at September 04, 2007 03:42 PM (2MwpW)
35
PITA, the movie Casualties of War was a movie directed by Brian De Palma, based up a script written by David Rabe, which in turn was based upon Daniel Lang's article in The New Yorker, which in turn, was inspired by a true event.
Further Rabe was irritated with what De Palma did to his script, further fictonalizing and stylizing it into what Vietnam correspondent and feminist Frances Fitzgerald, called "a sadoporn flick coated with sentimentality and laced with every cliche of the Vietnam War."
There is a reason this film wasn't called a documentary, junior.
"Casualties" is based upon a true story, but as anyone over Barney-watching age should know, that isn't remotely the same thing as reality.
Further Rabe was irritated with what De Palma did to his script, further fictonalizing and stylizing it into what Vietnam correspondent and feminist Frances Fitzgerald, called "a sadoporn flick coated with sentimentality and laced with every cliche of the Vietnam War."
There is a reason this film wasn't called a documentary, junior.
"Casualties" is based upon a true story, but as anyone over Barney-watching age should know, that isn't remotely the same thing as reality.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 04, 2007 07:14 PM (HcgFD)
36
Junior? Barney-watching age? What gives with the down-your-nose rudeness, Confederate Yankee?
Here's the deal: "Casualties of War" is a typical over-the-top DePalma movie with some invented combat scenes, and an invented attempted-fragging scene.
The movie is entirely accurate, however, in two key regards: the gang-rape and murder of the girl kidnapped by the recon patrol (it was every bit as brutal and bloody as portrayed on the screen); and the attempted cover-up of the incident by the chain of command (platoon leader and company commander, as shown in the movie, and battalion commander, too, as noted in a book written by the chaplain who finally reported the incident to division headquarters).
So, again, why the charge that the movie is "fiction"?
Unrepresentational of the American grunt experience in Vietnam? Yes. Fiction? Afraid not.
Here's the deal: "Casualties of War" is a typical over-the-top DePalma movie with some invented combat scenes, and an invented attempted-fragging scene.
The movie is entirely accurate, however, in two key regards: the gang-rape and murder of the girl kidnapped by the recon patrol (it was every bit as brutal and bloody as portrayed on the screen); and the attempted cover-up of the incident by the chain of command (platoon leader and company commander, as shown in the movie, and battalion commander, too, as noted in a book written by the chaplain who finally reported the incident to division headquarters).
So, again, why the charge that the movie is "fiction"?
Unrepresentational of the American grunt experience in Vietnam? Yes. Fiction? Afraid not.
Posted by: PITA at September 04, 2007 09:32 PM (2MwpW)
37
PITA,
While I'm not the expert that you obviously are on this particular incident, I would still make the argument that the fictionalization of the real events (the "Hollywood" type combat scenes and fake latrine fragging attempt come to mind) to serve a "larger truth" are inaccurate enough to warrant calling the film fiction, even if key elements of the film was based upon real events.
While I'm not the expert that you obviously are on this particular incident, I would still make the argument that the fictionalization of the real events (the "Hollywood" type combat scenes and fake latrine fragging attempt come to mind) to serve a "larger truth" are inaccurate enough to warrant calling the film fiction, even if key elements of the film was based upon real events.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 04, 2007 09:44 PM (HcgFD)
38
Well, fair enough, CY. I think we can agree on this: there's never been a movie about Vietnam, no matter what the political agenda, that did not fictionalize certain key aspects of the story.
And that's really too bad.
Put all the Vietnam movies in a blender (from The Green Berets to Platoon), and the viewer might get an accurate impression of how the war was really a hundred different wars, depending on when, where, and with what unit a soldier served.
Enough of my rambling.
And that's really too bad.
Put all the Vietnam movies in a blender (from The Green Berets to Platoon), and the viewer might get an accurate impression of how the war was really a hundred different wars, depending on when, where, and with what unit a soldier served.
Enough of my rambling.
Posted by: PITA at September 04, 2007 10:08 PM (2MwpW)
39
I accidentally put this comment in another post....
DePalma is a hack. He completely ruined The Black Dahlia. The pretentious little documentary about the killing that he stuck onto the DVD of that movie is laughable, no matter how gory. His fondness for such bloody fare makes me wonder if doing films like Redacted allows him to have his cake and eat it, too--in that he can satisfy his fondness for sadism even as he feigns outrage. Pervert actually means something, sometimes.
DePalma is a hack. He completely ruined The Black Dahlia. The pretentious little documentary about the killing that he stuck onto the DVD of that movie is laughable, no matter how gory. His fondness for such bloody fare makes me wonder if doing films like Redacted allows him to have his cake and eat it, too--in that he can satisfy his fondness for sadism even as he feigns outrage. Pervert actually means something, sometimes.
Posted by: clazy at September 04, 2007 10:48 PM (SI8Da)
40
De Palma is a crappy director, used to be good but now he's lost it. However I have no problem with someone making a film about this incident. Iraq is not the same as WWII. In WWII an imperial power, germany, was the invader. Here America is the invader, and has a duty of care towards the Iraqi people - whose country they have demolished. America is not like germany in WWII, not a fascist nazi state. However in order that it never becomes one, incidents like the rape and murder of this girl and her parents must be exposed. Only by holding onesself to a higher standard can one hope to achieve that standard.
To crtiticise the filmaker for making a film about something that REALLY happened is moral cowardice. It DID happen . It IS a crime. It must NOT happen again. Covering it up, or hiding these things behind operational imperatives ensures that these rapes and murders are more likely to happen.
In vietnam we saw footage of the horrific things being done to the people of vietnam. The chemical weapons used on them, the napalm. The destroyed villages, the massacres of civilians. These images helped bring what was an unjust and unecessary war to an end. however NO SUCH FOOTAGE of iraq is being shown. No bodybags are shown of the young men sent to die in Iraq - why not? No combat footage is being shown on the news - why not? How is hiding the war from the public serving the troops?
To crtiticise the filmaker for making a film about something that REALLY happened is moral cowardice. It DID happen . It IS a crime. It must NOT happen again. Covering it up, or hiding these things behind operational imperatives ensures that these rapes and murders are more likely to happen.
In vietnam we saw footage of the horrific things being done to the people of vietnam. The chemical weapons used on them, the napalm. The destroyed villages, the massacres of civilians. These images helped bring what was an unjust and unecessary war to an end. however NO SUCH FOOTAGE of iraq is being shown. No bodybags are shown of the young men sent to die in Iraq - why not? No combat footage is being shown on the news - why not? How is hiding the war from the public serving the troops?
Posted by: Wisdo at September 05, 2007 04:45 AM (gwSD/)
41
If I may extend the eating analogy, Wisdo, Hollywood is like a neurotic who will eat nothing but orange food, and Depalma is the man who makes cheese puffs.
Posted by: clazy at September 05, 2007 08:44 AM (EWsFM)
Friday Stupid
I didn't post anything yesterday because I've got separate investigations going on at once that I'm trying to stay on top of, and I have the honor of providing a noted photojournalism expert with material for a photoethics speech he's giving overseas in October.
Since I haven't been giving you real content, here's some "Friday Stupid" to keep you entertained. Only you can prevent forest fires:Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:42 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That is just SO wrong! BWAH-HAAA-HA-HA-HA..... (So I'm still juvenile at heart. Sue me.)
Posted by: Ric James at August 31, 2007 07:56 AM (AS/pd)
2
Is it Friday, already?
Posted by: Dusty at August 31, 2007 10:43 AM (1Lzs1)
3
Okay, I watched it. Cute chipmunk, but it would have been nice if the advertising firm had consulted someone before portraying a chipmunk as a tree dwelling rodent.
Posted by: Dusty at August 31, 2007 11:06 AM (1Lzs1)
4
Since I didn't know the product I was waiting to see how massive amounts of methane would put out a forest fire ... Oh, farts are icy cold ... ahh, ok.
Cute, but ... duh.
Cute, but ... duh.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 02, 2007 11:34 AM (qWgCU)
Posted by: Randy Rager at September 02, 2007 08:39 PM (hngM7)
6
Oooooooh - "investigations"!
I'll just bet it involves many, many hours in a lot of different public restrooms...
I'll just bet it involves many, many hours in a lot of different public restrooms...
Posted by: dave™© at September 02, 2007 11:24 PM (ysvZa)
Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.411 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3337 seconds, 576 records returned.
Page size 480 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.