knowing how to win wars since before 1993
Hillary’s Malleable War Opinion - FOX News
Listening to Hillary Clinton’s clumsy attempts to paint herself as a longtime opponent of the war in Iraq, one has to wonder just how dumb she thinks the American voters are. She now seems to be claiming that her vote for the war resolution in 2002 was really not a vote to go to war!
Morris fears Hillary Clinton like a 13 year-old girl fears the big older brother who’s always pinning her down and farting in her face.
No Retreat on Iraq Stance, McCain Insists
In Iowa, Senator John McCain made clear that he was not backing down from his all-out support for th
That, or he masturbates furiously to pictures of her, like an epileptic monkey with a meth lab.
Hey, she’s the frontrunner now not just in the Democratic primary but also in the general (polls have her defeating Giuliani). Apparently the American people are that dumb, or maybe they realize the six serious candidates are basically identical on foreign policy.
No. This is a guy who was so pathetic that he would impress prostitutes by letting them overhear as he called up Bill Clinton. He knows that his background as campaign manager and advisor for Clinton gives him some extra marketability as the official Hillary-basher among the right-wing media outlets. Everything he says is based on furthering his career as a right-wing pundit, which generally means character assassination and outright lying.
He’s dishonest. She never voted for this war in 2002. Congress never voted for this war. They voted to give Bush the power to engage in war if necessary and he jumped right ahead and used it. Given the information about “smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” it would’ve been crazy for anyone to not vote to. At no time in US history has there been such a coordinated disinformation campaign among top government officials, repeating with nearly the exact same wording, that Iraq had nukes and intended to use it on the US.
And damn, Morris is ugly!
rabit,
” At no time in US history has there been such a coordinated disinformation campaign among top government officials, repeating with nearly the exact same wording, that Iraq had nukes and intended to use it on the US.”
Really? That’s news to me. I guess the “disinformation campaign” wasn’t too effective. I don’t recall anyone suggesting that Iraq actually had nukes, only that Saddam was attempting to acquire them. There was various speculation about how far along he was in his quest. The main type of WMD Iraq was thought to have was chemical, since he already had that technology and had used chemical weapons in the past.
“And damn, Morris is ugly!”
Ok, now that we can agree on.
Really? That’s news to me. I guess the “disinformation campaign” wasn’t too effective. I don’t recall anyone suggesting that Iraq actually had nukes, only that Saddam was attempting to acquire them.
Here’s a browseable database of 237 statements made by Rice, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell.
Rumsfeld on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC (7/13/2003): “We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate.”
Dick Cheney, draft-dodger, lying at the Veteran of Foreign Wars (8/26/2002): “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
Cheney on the Press, NBC (3/16/2003): “He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
President Bush, statement from the White House (10/7/2002): “Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
So?
rabit,
Everything you just quoted supports what I said earlier. A nuclear program does not equal nuclear weapons. Does Iran have nuclear weapons? They have a nuclear program. You need a nuclear program to get nuclear weapons, but it can take years. There is certainly evidence that Iraq had a nuclear program. It wasn’t as far along or “reconstituted” to pre-Gulf War levels as Cheney was arguing, but certainly at one time Saddam was looking to acquire nuclear weapons. No one, not even in the administration, was suggesting that Iraq already had nuclear weapons and that we had to attack before it used them.
What they were clearly talking about was their belief that the U.S. needed to take preemptive action BEFORE Saddam Hussein got nuclear weapons. The WMD Cheney (and almost every major intelligence agency in the world) thought Iraq had, were chemical weapons.
Everything you just quoted supports what I said earlier.
In some other parallel universe, yes it perhaps does. In this reality, Cheney says “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons” means Cheney says he believes that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons.
No one, not even in the administration, was suggesting that Iraq already had nuclear weapons and that we had to attack before it used them.
When Rice and Bush both said in 2002 that the smoking gun could arrive in a form of a mushroom cloud, the implication of that is crystal clear to nearly every American who heard it. Maybe not to you, but definitely to virtually everyone else who listened to it regardless of their politics.
In case it isn’t clear for you, let me explain. A mushroom cloud is strongly associated with really big explosion, say a nuclear detonation of the force that can destroy an entire city and completely wipe out any trace of millions of people in a few seconds. The smoking gun is the evidence with which we would establish whether the enemy has that capacity to wipe a million people off the planet in a few seconds in the first place. It’s pretty scary stuff when you hear it from people who have all the power in the world to be ‘in the know’ about such matters, such as the President of the United States and his top advisers.
So, when both Rice and Bush said that the smoking gun could arrive in the form of a mushroom cloud (and see, he really did say that), it means to everyone watching, that Iraq probably has nuclear weapons and if we wait first to establish proof (the smoking gun) that Saddam had this capacity, we risk the real danger that millions of us could be disintegrated in a single white hot flash of light.
Back in 2003, when the President of the United States told you that, you really had no choice but to take it seriously - especially following 9/11. It’s inconceivable that a president would use 9/11 as a tool to jumpstart an agenda than Osama probably ever imagined. Or maybe he did, who knows.
Woops, hit post to quickly. the last part should read:
It’s inconceivable that a president would use 9/11 to start a chain of events that would ultimately lead to hurting the US and helping Al Qaeda much more than Osama probably imagined his act of terrorism would. Or maybe he did.
You know, this would all seem so much clearer if you had paid attention to what Michael Moore was saying three years ago. 
It’s true that Moore’s statements offer a certain clarity to any debate. For example, his remarks on the victims of 9/11:
“They did not deserve to die…. Boston, New York, DC and the plane’s destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!”
Yep! The full quote: “Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted against Bush!”
Call it a badly worded but completely factual statement made by Moore at the heat of the moment of the 9/11 attack, then intentionally misinterpreted by dishonest pundits to imply that he said only red state Bush voters deserve a terrorist attack, then regurgitated endlessly by the lazy and thoughtless. Point out to me where he says that!
Contrast this with Ann Coulter: “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much” about the widows of 9/11 victims. No room for misinterpretation there.
So. Do you see Moore gloating now that mostly every one of his former critics, to varying degrees, have come to realize that he was right, and it was the people some of YOU trusted who were the ones lying to you, treating you like complete morons, and unpatriotically shoving the entire country down the tubes for a little personal financial gain? (see pundits)
Then maybe you’ll rent Fahrenheit 9/11 or see it free on youtube now knowing that despite every attempt to attack it’s credibility (including Dick Morris’ Fahrenhype and that “list of 50 Fahrenheit 9/11 lies”) not one single statement in the movie has been successfully disputed. And if any of you knew then what you do know now, would YOU have put yourself out as a lightning rod for some of the most venomous, hateful attacks from the same people you’re doing this to help? Or perhaps to save a few lives from being lost the inevitable CIVIL WAR we’re entangled in in Iraq.
Wow, this has gotten off topic. Sorry about that, Commissar.
Look, rabit, back in the 1990s I was a union man. I watched Roger & Me and Pets Or Meat. I know what to expect from Moore as an ally — which is dishonest, unfair argumentation. And that’s if he’s on your side.
Not interested in him, thanks. Or Ann Coulter either, for that matter.
“In some other parallel universe, yes it perhaps does. In this reality, Cheney says “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons” means Cheney says he believes that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
No it doesn’t. Because Saddam never had nuclear weapons, therefore there was nothing to “reconstitute.” Cheney was talking about Saddam’s nuclear program, which he did have, but apparently was unable to revive after the Gulf War.
“When Rice and Bush both said in 2002 that the smoking gun could arrive in a form of a mushroom cloud, the implication of that is crystal clear to nearly every American who heard it. Maybe not to you, but definitely to virtually everyone else who listened to it regardless of their politics.”
Again, they were talking about what would happen if Saddam was able to get nuclear weapons. Do you not understand the concept of preemption?
And as for the Michael Moore nonsense, don’t make me laugh. Please save the BDS-inspired ranting and stick to the specific topic we are arguing about. Apparently you, an anti-war left-winger, actually thought the administration made a case that Saddam had nuclear weapons, while I, a pro-war right-winger, never felt there was any evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapons. That’s pretty amusing.
Grim said:
Look, rabit, back in the 1990s I was a union man. I watched Roger & Me and Pets Or Meat. I know what to expect from Moore as an ally — which is dishonest, unfair argumentation. And that’s if he’s on your side.
Really? Dishonest and unfair? As a union man of the 90’s, how was Michael Moore dishonest and unfair to you?
David C writes:
Because Saddam never had nuclear weapons, therefore there was nothing to “reconstitute.” Cheney was talking about Saddam’s nuclear program, which he did have, but apparently was unable to revive after the Gulf War.
So you’re saying that when Cheney said “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons” that he didn’t actually mean Saddam had yet reconstituted nuclear weapons, because, obviously, Saddam hadn’t yet reconstituted nuclear weapons program. I mean, this was common knowledge to everyone and what Cheney meant wasn’t actually what he said. Duh!
Saddam never attempted to develop nuclear weapons after the Gulf War.
Again, they were talking about what would happen if Saddam was able to get nuclear weapons. Do you not understand the concept of preemption?
Yes, I do. So, when there’s no possible chance of a nuclear attack, no nuclear weapons, no evidence of a program to develop nuclear weapons, how is that called preemption?
And as for the Michael Moore nonsense, don’t make me laugh. Please save the BDS-inspired ranting and stick to the specific topic we are arguing about. Apparently you, an anti-war left-winger, actually thought the administration made a case that Saddam had nuclear weapons, while I, a pro-war right-winger, never felt there was any evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapons. That’s pretty amusing.
Anti-war/pro-war is a little misleading, don’t you think? How about anti-death, and pro-death? Any country that poses a direct death threat to the American population should be attacked. That is why I originally supported the war, and would again in a heart beat. Bush and Rice BOTH said “The smoking gun could arrive in the form of a mushroom cloud” and that means just what it says.
So, absent any possible threat of nuclear weapons, tell me your rational for supporting this war now and you better make it damn f*cking good because it’s already cost 3,000 American lines, over 100,000 Iraqi lives, drained our national resources to the tune of $30,000 from every American citizen, allowed Al Qaeda a breeding ground in Iraq and resurface in Afghanistan, put the US in debt to countries like China, and damaged our credility everywhere in the world. So, what is it? Nobody has given any reason for supporting this war that makes any sense.
“Listening to Hillary Clinton’s clumsy attempts to paint herself as a longtime opponent of the war in Iraq, one has to wonder just how dumb she thinks the American voters are.”
I for one do not underestimate the amnesia of the electorate.
Well, for one thing, he indicated that union men whose factories closed were likely to become violent criminals. This was done by elliding the factory closing with a rising crime rate, and pictures of people being shot in the streets.
In fact, crime rates were rising across the country in the late Carter era. There’s no reason to believe that hard working men, who had heretofore devoted themselves to raising their families, would suddenly become criminal if put out of work.
I’d say it was a slander. It suggested that union workers were a low, dangerous kind of man in need of appeasement if they weren’t to become a threat to society. The truth is that almost every one I ever met worked hard and played fair.
And that, as I said, was with him on our side.
Hey, I don’t care much for Michael Moore either. Bowling for Columbine makes some absurd cultural argument about crime in the US even though the American crime rate is half that of Britain in every category but murder. Roger and Me is to Charles Dickens’ works what The Da Vinci Code is to Umberto Eco’s; it could serve as a warning for cities not to base their prosperity on a few mega-corporations that would relocate as soon as they could, but Moore just doesn’t engage in that kind of analysis. Fahrenheit 9/11 actually made me sympathize with Bush a little bit, it was so shrill.
Grim:
Well, for one thing, he indicated that union men whose factories closed were likely to become violent criminals. This was done by elliding the factory closing with a rising crime rate, and pictures of people being shot in the streets.
Hahahaha! No he didn’t. He indicated crime rises when poverty and unemployment rises. That’s reality. Property values plummet, good people move out, criminal types move in, crime rises. You’re making up **** that isn’t there.
There’s no reason to believe that hard working men, who had heretofore devoted themselves to raising their families, would suddenly become criminal if put out of work.
Where did he say that? There was NEVER any implication made in the movie that every employee laid off from that company turned to crime. If you are suggesting Moore said anything to that effect, you are either seeing stuff that isn’t there or one of those liars with an agenda to smear Moore because they don’t like what he says.
I’d say it was a slander. It suggested that union workers were a low, dangerous kind of man in need of appeasement if they weren’t to become a threat to society. The truth is that almost every one I ever met worked hard and played fair.
Okay, you’re either horribly confused here or completely brainwashed by your corporate masters and have never seen Roger & Me. Moore said nothing of the sort. The reality is that SOME (as you say) hard-working people (union or non-union) turn to crime when they are laid off. This is a statistical fact which you cannot deny.
When GM closed their plant and laid off all those thousands of employees, what do you think happens? Do they all try to find other jobs in the area that may only pay a fraction of what they were getting at the factory, do they turn to crime in order to survive, or do they move elsewhere where there are jobs, while the criminal elements move in?
I’m no expert, I’ve never worked in a factory or had to be part of a union, I’m just applying a little common sense. And it seems pretty damn obvious to me.
alon levy writes:
Bowling for Columbine makes some absurd cultural argument about crime in the US even though the American crime rate is half that of Britain in every category but murder.
A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that overall, America has a 300% overall higher crime rate than the UK. WHAT THE FUC?K? Don’t people actually research their facts anymore? It’s not that hard with the internet.
it could serve as a warning for cities not to base their prosperity on a few mega-corporations that would relocate as soon as they could, but Moore just doesn’t engage in that kind of analysis.
No, Moore’s movies aren’t about deep analysis. He’s mentioned that he’s more about entertaining and shocking people out of complacency than informing. If you want deep analysis of this sort of issue, there are far better documentaries from Robert Greenwald, or The Corporation which is one of the best documentaries I’ve seen.
Rabit,
You seem to be a semantics kind of guy. After reading the back and forth above I think something needs to be brought to your attention:
POLITICIANS ON BOTH SIDES LIE ON A REGULAR BASIS TO FURTHER THEMSELVES.
Consider this:
Many Lefties were on board with the war in 2003 not because they actually supported the President, but because they didn’t wanted to labeled as weak. (Hillary is an excellent example of this) Now almost all of these have changed their minds. Not because they have had an epiphany, but because they smell blood in the political water. BTW Dick Morris is an example of how this works in the other direction.
You seem to be a semantics kind of guy.
Yes, and I know when a lie is a lie.
POLITICIANS ON BOTH SIDES LIE ON A REGULAR BASIS TO FURTHER THEMSELVES.
You’re right, both sides lie to get elected but republican politicians are the only ones who consistently and pathologically lie well after they’ve been elected. It’s because their agenda, under any real scrutiny, hurts the very people that support them in office. They have a tough sell and by lying, they obscure any real debate on issues. The Bush administration has spent record amounts of money in public relations, including paying right-wing pundits ($240,000 to Armstrong Williams) as paid propogandists, with public money. Is the public too stupid to judge legislation on their own merits?
Unfortunately, lying has a corrosive effect on character, which is why many times more republicans politicians than democrats have been investigated for fraud and sex offenses.
Many Lefties were on board with the war in 2003 not because they actually supported the President, but because they didn’t wanted to labeled as weak. (Hillary is an excellent example of this) Now almost all of these have changed their minds.
That’s certainly partly it, because many were convinced that Saddam did have the potential to hit us with weapons, and how bad would that look for any politicos career if they voted wrong in that case? So yes, some believed that the Bush Administration was actually telling the truth that (A) Saddam was a threat and (B) that Saddam supported the 9/11 attackers. If either A or B were true, then Iraq was justified. Unfortunately, both were lies. Imagine that!
Republicans position themselves as moderators of the democratic party, but the truth is that it’s the democrats who have to moderate the republican party’s pro-big government/inefficient bureaucracies, outrageous spending, and their incredibly stupid “any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine” foreign policies, such as the funding terrorism in Nicaragua from money made by selling weapons to Iran, or the supporting of Saddam’s rise to power (he was still considered an ally under George H. W. Bush administration when he killed 5,000 Kurds, yet Bush Jr. used it as a pretext for going into Iraq), and of course, providing weapons to Osama to help him “defeat” the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Your handle is “John the Marine” but why did you vote twice for a president and a vice president who both supported the Vietnam war yet cowardly weaseled their way out of being drafted.
Yet, you twice voted against two men who, by choice, enlisted to go to Vietnam. Al Gore and John Kerry have demonstrated for more courage, integrity, and intelligence than anyone I can name from the republican side. How did we end up with weak-minded scoundrels running the country? It’s a disgrace!
Guess I need to split my post up into two for it to be accepted;
Sorry Rabit, your kidding yourself if you honestly beleive the above.
I don’t believe it, I know it. They don’t merely lie, they honestly believe they operate in a separate universe. I know it as much as I know that my hands are typing this. It’s what the Colbert calls “truthiness.” It just needs to sound (or ‘feel’) true to be true. Any lie can “feel” true to you if it’s something you want to believe.
A great explanation for this comes right from the mouth of a Bush aide, who told Ron Susskind that he and the rest of the media live in the reality-based community, who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” Where as the Bush aide explained that the “World doesn’t work this way anymore, We’re an empire now” and that himself and the people in the White House are “History actors” and “when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities” You see this mind-over-matter mysticism **** in religious cults. It’s absolutely terrifying to see it in political leaders.
Read the whole article.
Pretty damn bad. However, the Clinton adminastrsation beleived it too. Were they fooled by Bush? Perhaps Darth Chenney went back in time and hoodwinked ole slick willy & Co.
Yes they did, but they didn’t gamble **3,000 American lives** and **trillions of dollars** on flimsy evidence, did they? The decision to go into Iraq did not weigh heavily on Bush or Cheneys or Rumsfelds or Rice’s conscience, because they clearly had none. Anyone who brought skepticism to their view that Saddam was a threat was fired or attacked in the media. This is at the very root of the Valerie Plame case, in case you haven’t been paying attention.
Ted Kenedy, he only murdered some poor girl. But hey, who cares? he’s a liberal right?
Ha, yes. That’s certainly one. Teddy ain’t the only one from the that Kennedy clan who caused the death of an innocent girl from that family. Remember the Skakel trial, the distant cousin who clubbed an innocent girl to death when he was a kid? But still, nothing compares with this massive list of more Republican murderers and sex offenders. I suppose there might be a few democrats who might belong on this list of criminals and sickos, but I can’t seem to recall any. If you know, I’m really curious.
Your politics have clouded your judgment. You only see the transgression you want to see. This is typical of partisans. If I may make a suggestion; Try reading something besides the Nation or the N.Y. Times. Read some of the othersides literature, like the WSJ or, if you take it, The Weekly Standard. I think you might find it interesting to read the points of view other than those of the Left.
Heh! I do read the WSJ on occasion and the only blogs that I really post on are this one and indcjournal, both republican. I read a few other republican blogs, but they tend to be fairly moderate, like Dennis the Peasant and Andrew Sullivan. I completely avoid blogs written by the mentally-ill and sociopathic like Malken, Hewitt, Goldberg, Instanpundit because reading that makes one stupid.
Weekly Standard is a neo-conservative rag. Nobody should read this garbage. Here’s a quote from Weekly Standard writer Matt Labash:
“While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.”
I prefer facts, life is too short for bullshit. Reading Weekly Standard makes people stupider, this is scientific fact.
Please, no obligation to reply. I really am tired of looking at Dick Morris and that constipated grin.
Rabit,
Three of your comments were held in moderation, but you seem to have entered the info in smaller chunks that passed the filter. Anyway, I deleted them from moderation because you seem to have successfully said what you wanted to.
In general, I am not a fan of lengthy, multi-linked comments in any case.
I’ve been away and will move Dick Morris’s mug even lower ASAP.
Rabit,
Sorry, I didn’t reply sooner I’ve been out and about.
Last night I was watching a Chris Rock stand up (funny, funny stuff). However, in between all the cursing and course humor Mr. Rock made a very intelligent point that I would like to share with you.
“Anyone who makes up their mind before hearing the issue is a “F”ing idiot…”
He goes on to explicitly tell the audience that partisans of both polar stripes are seriously stupid. Now, I’m not trying to call you names (you don’t have to call some one an idiot to make this point.) but I think the point is valid.
You brought up the fact that Clinton did not invade Iraq, however, he did invade: Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and he bombed: Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan. You, see Billy boy had no problem killing folks and the Left had no problem with killing folks as long as it was their guy doing the killing. I honestly believe people like you oppose (and opposed) this war simply because it is “W’s” war.
It seems you honestly believe in the evil right wing. I’m not going to bother trying to convince you that that stance is silly. Consider this though: In the 90’s the Right accused Bill & Hill of everything but infant sacrifice and devil worship. They ranted and raved all to no avail. The rabid Left types, like yourself, are todays equivalent of those fools. You do yourself more harm than your political/rhetorical opponents could ever hope to inflict.
I’m pretty sure the only reason I stayed with Bush thru 2004 was because I was so put off by the Lefties and nutroots.
Call it my character flaw if you like. But I’m sure I’m not alone.
Commissar:
LAUGH.
That brings up the main theme of an essay I’ve been meaning to write for years:
That your core ideological position is never determined by apparently rational and internally consistent tenets in conjunction with a realistic assessment of practical possibilities. After all, that would describe a variety of ideologies from the leftward edge of the Social Democrats to the rightward edge of neo-liberalism or traditional organized religions.
Nope. You can tell where you belong on the spectrum by which set of screwballs you have to tolerate to remain where you place yourself.
Using this rule I pegged Christopher Hitches as a freshly-minted right-winger years before anyone else when I saw him on C-Span at a “Treason is the Reason” anti-Clinton rally sponsored by Judicial Watch. He stood there on “stage” as Dolly Kyle Browning spewed this amazingly delusional stuff about banging Bill Clinton back in high school (not that she did or didn’t bang Clinton back then. It just wasn’t treason.) The look on his face was priceless.
And he stood there and took it. I knew right then he’d gone over to the dark side.
jfx,
I dunno. In Israel, no one has to tolerate anyone that they deem a screwball, because everyone has his own political party.
Someone should do a study of average comment length. …. umm … No, not quite.
The interesting variable is “percentage of incredibly verbose, long-winded, multi-link, table-pounding perorations disguised as comments.” I bet Lefties do that about 10 times as much as Righties.
Of course.
My side writes books, your side writes bumper stickers.
A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that overall, America has a 300% overall higher crime rate than the UK. WHAT THE FUC?K? Don’t people actually research their facts anymore? It’s not that hard with the internet.
The link is about murder rates, which I explicitly excluded. Google “National Crime Victimization Survey” and “British Crime Survey” to get the real assault/robbery/rape figures. Britain’s rate is about twice the USA’s; it seems lower only because Americans tend to report crime more.
He goes on to explicitly tell the audience that partisans of both polar stripes are seriously stupid. Now, I’m not trying to call you names (you don’t have to call some one an idiot to make this point.) but I think the point is valid.
I haven’t seen this Chris Rock show (I don’t really find him or most stand-up comics that funny, except George Carlin) but I suspect you might have your terms confused. Partisan or extremists? Is he saying it’s wrong to have a very specific point of view? Well, I’ve voted largely for democrats since the day I was old enough to vote, and if Chris Rock or you don’t like it, I really couldn’t care less. 
But I think Chris Rock was talking about extremists, not partisans. Everyone is capable of self-delusion and our brains are like computers - feed it garbage and it only produces garbage. Unlike computers, our brains operate in an imprecise world and constantly receiving imprecise data, but by nature always trying to produce simple answers.
Self-delusion is usually the result of restricting the type of information to your brain to just the information you are “comfortable” with, the stuff that already supports your point of view, to re-inforce the simple answers that your brain desires. This just makes your brain lazy, anemic and further incapable of processing the nuances that are present in the real-world.
Politicians of all stripes play into this, of course. Republicans have cynically taken it to a new level in the last 20 years. The “mainstream media” meme was the first line of attack - accuse the media you don’t want people to hear of a known bias.
True, many news people are politically left-aligned, and this does influence choice of reporting - however, the MSM upholds a thing called journalistic standards, which means rigorous fact-checking, verifying facts, sometimes even traveling to other countries to research a story. This is not merely to uphold the credibility of the journalist, but the entire paper. (continued in next post)
Your brain is only as good as the information that goes into it. I should be able to read a story in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal or Christian Times Monitor or Mother Jones that says x did y, and be able to trust that this information is accurate. If it isn’t, I should expect a correction to be published in the next issue and the credibility of that reporter brought into question.
Now, let’s say there’s a political strategist who stumbled on a brilliant but highly cynical plan to get his political party back on top, that involved many of the same techniques of propoganda that have existed for hundreds of years, but retooled to use recent technological advances in communication.
Well, the first line of attack will of course be on journalism, or what is now as the “mainstream media.” Plant the thought-virus that everyone in the media (as in, just the media that YOU don’t want people to hear) presents a slanted view of the world - and keep drumming that point in to the public consciousness. Eventually, it becomes a thought-virus and it spreads on it’s own volition.
Good, now let’s create some alternate avenues of “news” - OUR news, the news that we want people to hear. We’ll even make it our slogan that we are the very models of fairness and balance in reporting, just to make those others seem irrelevant. Let’s also make it flashier, more exciting, because we will be attracting a lot of new people to this media circle who were never interested in politics before. We’re not hiring journalists - heck, journalism is not our business here - nice hair, boobs? Hired! We need a few well-known figures to give our channel an air of journalistic credibility. Well, Brit Hume isn’t doing much besides writing books on how to use Windows 95 - let’s bring him on board. Let’s bring his son on board, too. Wooooopsie!
So, what do you do with this new ‘media’ you’ve just created? Well, since your original attack on the “MSM” was about journalist’s opinions effecting their reporting of facts, let’s create a format that is purely opinion. It’s consistent with our thought-meme, and we can push the idea that EVERY fact is colored by the political-leanings of the journalist who produced the story. Never mind that journalism is like mathematics, a solution to a problem is either true or false irreverent to the political leanings of the math professor.
So, now that we’ve established our format isn’t exactly a journalistic one, we can have our reporters speak for themselves, not as a representative of our media. Did American soldiers in Malmedy decide randomly to kill 72 German prisoners of war in WWII? Well, it was Bill O’Reilly who said it, not Fox News.
So, now you’ve got the largest share of viewers on TV, and you’ve planted skepticism in the minds of most of your watchers that you are the only trusted news source around. Never mind that you’ve weakened the country in the process of doing it, creating unnecessary fear and anger among your viewers purely in the name of maintaining the political power of your party.
Welcome to the world Roger Ailes created.
And I thought you were talking about Markos Moulitsas, although the hair and boobs bit puzzled me.
Do you think Markos has nice hair?
You, John The Marine, are very much a victim of this. The best evidence of this is:
John Kerry? Please don’t get me started on that doosh bag (too much to list starting with 3 BS purple hearts).
I can presume you are a supporter of the military. Yet, you called a man who earned his three Purple Hearts the same as everyone else did. He did not intentionally bruise himself or shoot a toe to earn it, or whatever the Roger Ailes/Richard Scaife right-wing noise machine has told you. The Swift Boat Veterans were a republican-funded smear organization - none of what they said is true.
You brought up the fact that Clinton did not invade Iraq, however, he did invade: Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and he bombed: Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan. You, see Billy boy had no problem killing folks and the Left had no problem with killing folks as long as it was their guy doing the killing.
Classic straw man. In fact, I said I would support ANY war with ANY country that poses a direct threat to us. War is necessary sometimes. My point has been absolutely consistent. War should always be the last option when all others fail. That is exactly the point I made with Iraq. Had Gore been elected president in 2000, we would never have gone into Iraq. In fact, it’s likely now that 9/11 would not have happened. And the possibly now unpreventable environmental catastrophe that will happen over the next 30 years, that scientists are nearly in total agreement about in being caused by human factors, might’ve been much less of an issue had the 2000 election gone a different way.
It seems you honestly believe in the evil right wing.
Yes, I do. They are anyone who seeks to deceive the public through blatant and willful disinformation.
I’m not going to bother trying to convince you that that stance is silly. Consider this though: In the 90’s the Right accused Bill & Hill of everything but infant sacrifice and devil worship.
I thought it was mostly rape (Paula Jones) and murder (Vince Foster).
They ranted and raved all to no avail.
One word: Watergate
The rabid Left types, like yourself, are todays equivalent of those fools. You do yourself more harm than your political/rhetorical opponents could ever hope to inflict.
I’ve been saying the same thing about the right-wing then as I do now. Clinton’s biggest crime in the White House was receiving a ********. As a president, he was one of the smartest leaders we’ve had in decades, possibly since Eisenhower (a Republican who I consider one of the best presidents we’ve ever had - though long before my lifetime).
Contrast this with Bush, who has actually done real, irrepairable damage to this country and the world, his entire administration that has been shown to be more corruptible and incompetent than Nixon’s. And worse, infected with a neo-conservative theology that dictates if something fails, do it again until it works.
You know, it just might be a little flaky to you, but 20 years of computer programming has shown me that you can sometimes see the same patterns of communication in human networks that you see in computer networks. Modern conservatism reminds me a lot of a computer virus in the way that it often spreads by contact. Those who are infected tend to spread it to others. Most are benign, they merely sit invisibly on your machine, maybe cause some occasional pop-ups, or possibly use your computer to distribute spam without your knowing it.
Inevitably, “mutations” appear of these viruses that actually do cause real damage and do real damage, like making your system unbootable or encrypt files and request that you pay for a ‘code’ that will get your files back. Neo-conservatism to me is like this mutation that piggybacked on top of the first virus. It’s a well known fact that neo-conservatism evolved as a left-wing idealogy and “morphed” into a right-wing political movement.
Crazy I know, but I stand by it.
And I thought you were talking about Markos Moulitsas, although the hair and boobs bit puzzled me.
Hahaha! You never know about these lefty blogger types. He could really be a woman.
Do you think Markos has nice hair?
He has hair, but it’s not republican enough (see: Rick Santorum) to get him a regular gig on Fox News.
They ranted and raved all to no avail.
One word: Watergate
Woops, I meant Whitewater - the $80 million investigation of the Clinton Administration that ended with a ******** and hinged on a stained dress.
Those were innocent times.
Under your definition Rabit please tell me how Bosnia was a direct threat to this country?
Having served there I’m curious as to how you’ll respond.
Having served in Haiti I pose the same question, please explain how it was a direct threat as well. Toss in Kosovo for a inquiry.
I dare say if you consider Clinton Brilliant, then you must consider having a military that was cut back to the point of a mere skeleton brilliant as well. I have another word for it: Exposed. As in thats how he left us. The constant rotation of troops that the Left screams about now is directly due to the lack of troops available due to the Clinton Cut backs.
Am I attempting to justify the Right? No. I’m a RINO because while I lean Right I am not an extremist by any stretch of the imagination. However the fact that the Left does themselves more discredit though association of groups such as Code Pink, and ANSWER to name a few is enough for me to wash my hands of any benefit the Left may have as an actual useful group for decision making.
When you lie with dogs you get flea’s
Again however to say that Bush is the walking characterization of the Devil is just a little too Chavez for my tastes. Has he fornicated the canine? Absolutely. Is he the worst President ever? 2 words. Jimmy Carter.
Someone should do a study of average comment length. …. umm … No, not quite.
The interesting variable is “percentage of incredibly verbose, long-winded, multi-link, table-pounding perorations disguised as comments.” I bet Lefties do that about 10 times as much as Righties.
Sorry about that, but reality can’t be reduced to soundbites.
Under your definition Rabit please tell me how Bosnia was a direct threat to this country?
Having served there I’m curious as to how you’ll respond.
Having served in Haiti I pose the same question, please explain how it was a direct threat as well. Toss in Kosovo for a inquiry.
Funny, I don’t seem to recall the US ever declaring war with Bosnia, Haiti or Kosovo… And how long was our involvement there and how many US soldiers died?
I dare say if you consider Clinton Brilliant, then you must consider having a military that was cut back to the point of a mere skeleton brilliant as well.
Interesting, but it seems that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld have been behind the biggest push for base closings, first under Sr. Bush, who mostly rejected them, and now under Jr. Bush, who doesn’t.
However the fact that the Left does themselves more discredit though association of groups such as Code Pink, and ANSWER to name a few is enough for me to wash my hands of any benefit the Left may have as an actual useful group for decision making.
Hmmm. Code pink? ah yes, Cindy Sheehan’s group. So, what exactly is your problem with them? Seems like any patriotic American shouldn’t have any problem with a group like that. What’s your beef with them? And not made up ****, like that they feast on aborted babies.
Again however to say that Bush is the walking characterization of the Devil is just a little too Chavez for my tastes.
Ohh, did I say that? No, I think Bush sincerely believes that what he is doing is right. I think Cheney is a villian because he’s a coward who’s unable to accept responsibility for the Iraq war, and still accuses war opponents of aiding terrorism - despite the fact that way over half the US population opposes the war now, which means he’s calling into question the patriotism of over half the US population. The President and Vice-President work for the people of the United States, not the other way around.
Is he the worst President ever? 2 words. Jimmy Carter.
Not even close.
They ranted and raved all to no avail.
One word: Watergate
Woops, I meant Whitewater, the $80,000,000 investigation into old Clinton business dealings that ended with absolutely nothing but a ******** and hinged on a stained dress.
Those were innocent times.
Please, please, feel no obligation to reply to any of my writings. Don’t even read them. I am truely sick of that Dick Morris head shot. I may have to hack a Greasemonkey script so I never see it again.
“Never mind that journalism is like mathematics, a solution to a problem is either true or false irreverent to the political leanings of the math professor.”
Please comment on CBS News “mathematical” approach to the so-called military/veterans grass-roots organization, Appeal for Redress, whose organizers are part of MoveOn.org.
No Soldiers died in Somalia? Or Haiti? Or Bosnia? Thats interesting.
We were dispatched there during the Clinton administration, 1995, and have only this past year shut down Task Force Eagle. Over 10 years we were there.
Vietnam War 1964–1973 47,355 10,796 58,151 153,303 211,454 2,489 [2]
Iran Hostage crisis 1980 0 8 8 5
El Salvador Civil War 1980–1992 9 20 35
Beirut deployment 1982–1984 256 266 169
Bombing of Libya 1986 2 0 2 0 2 0
Persian Gulf escorts 1987–1988 39 0 39 31
Invasion of Grenada 1983 18 1 19 119 [citation needed]
Invasion of Panama 1989 23 40 324 [citation needed]
Gulf War 1990–1991 148 151 299 467 [2]
Somalia 1992–1993 30 45 153
Haiti 1994–1995 1 4 3
Bosnian War 1995? 1 12 6
Kosovo 1999 0 2 ?
My Figures from Wikipedia And as you so carefully pointed out they were not full blown war, which soldiers die in. Looked at in a historical perspective the fact that we have only lost 3,000+ in the time we have been there is friggin outstanding
Code Pink decided to sit and protest out side of Walter Reed Hospital all the while saying they supported troops. How do you support troops by protesting them out of a hospital saying they died for a lie and other slanderous remarks? Thats a sure fire way to win hearts and minds isn’t it?
No to mention their ties with Marxism. I’m sorry I fought the communist movement enough to know it’s absolutely nothing I want in my country.
Cindy Sheehan? You mean the lady who wouldn’t even pay for her sons Tombstone? Please. Next contestant.
In January 2005, CodePINK acknowledged a donation of more than $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the “other side” in the terrorist haven city of Fallujah in Iraq. Once again, keep this in mind. CodePINK gave over $600,000 of “Aid and Comfort” to our enemies. They did not give $600,000 of “Aid and Comfort” to our soldiers. They have also participated in war crimes tribunals against America and they refer to American soldiers as “Killers” on their website.
Tell me again why I should want these people around?
I notice you completely ignored the relations between the Democratic party, Code PINK and ANSWER, choosing to dismiss ANSWER which even Commissar has ridiculed here.
I’m still waiting for your proof of retribution regarding the Swift Boat Veterans as well.
Base closings? Thats the best you can do? Thats a annual thing that happens pretty regular as any military service member of any time over 10 years can tell you.
Try this one.
709,000 Regular (ACTIVE DUTY) Personnel.
293,000 Reserve Troops
8 Standing Army Divisions.
20 Air Force and Navy Air Wings
2,000 Combat Aircraft.
232 Strategic Bombers.
19 Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarine’s
3,114 Nuclear Warheads on 232 Missiles.
500 ICBM’s with 1,950 Warheads.
4 Aircraft Carriers
121 Surface Combat Ships and Submarine’s plus all the support Bases, Shipyards, and Logistical Assets needed to sustain that Naval Force
Thats What Bill Clinton decommissioned in his tenure.
Again do I think Bush walks on water? No.
Do I think he’s mismanaging this war? Yes.
Me? I’ve said it a hundred times over. Loosen the ROE, declare martial law with absolutely no Iraqi say so until their government was 100% in operation and ready to take over, increase troops by 100,000 or more in theater, and place restrictions out of theater for Americans and do a good old fashion War Bond drive.
Has he screwed up? Yes. Absolutely. But don’t dance around with half hearted arguments expecting a lot of us here to swallow them without a reason why or facts to back them up, please.
I won’t insult your intelligence that way, please show the same regard for me.
Rabit, you are a simple case of pot calling kettle black. There is always another side. The MSM has stepped in it plenty of times. ex. Dan Blather and his document machine come to mind.
Oh, by the way the Chris Rock point was not directed as an insult towards you. Honestly there was no name calling/insult slinging intended. Also, like you I could care less who likes my point of view.
Long story short on your above novel. You are classic brain washed Leftie you beleive every line that they have fed you.
Oh, one more thing how did Haiti pose a threat to U.S. security? How did any of the examples of Bills military prowess threaten US security. Finally it wasn’t the swift boat attacks that make me hate Kerry it is: 3 purple hearts without one day spent in a hospital bed (seems fishy to me), His testimony before Congress (enough to make a Marine puke) and the his book of lies, “Winter Soldier”. He **** on us and the exspected our (servicemen/vets) support. You can’t serve before you support the enemy and think we are all going say, “gee what a swell guy, he was in the Navy”. Nope that just doesn’t get it done. You see with Marines your either for us or against us. No, middle ground. By the way I do support the Military. Always have. I just don’t support jerks like Kerry.
The Commissar wrote:
Please comment on CBS News “mathematical” approach to the so-called military/veterans grass-roots organization, Appeal
for Redress, whose organizers are part of MoveOn.org.
Okay! Here’s a shocker. MoveOn and Appeal for Redress are not connected.
But this is what Fox News has done for years and why their audience continue to be the least uninformed, by far.
rabit,
It’s more than just a Faux News story. Your link is just a bald “no it aint” type of rebuttal.
Here:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2006/10/27/
Pls comment on ’sailor” Hutto, the common registration of AforR and FFF, the quick change that FFF did on the registration, the Fenton connection, etc.
Pls dont give me any “not illegal” ****. I know that. The issue is the way CBS News presented this obviously well-connected, well-organized, creature of know Leftie organizations as “grass roots.”
Since, you know, you guys ALWAYS have the FACTs on your side.
Usually, you want to go on and on and on. Today, just a quickie, “No it aint” link speaks volumes.
Alon, Bloodspite, and John The Marine - Sorry, been busy with work and won’t be able to devote the time to reply in-depth that your comments deserve until late tomorrow.
Hehehe, unfortunately I don’t have time today. Will leave that for tomorrow.
No worries Rabit. We all have to work. Right and Left both need to eat.
Cease fire! Cease fire! unload and clear. clear on the right! clear on the Left! Aaallll clear on the firing line.
Clear!
Work comes first, intellectual debate among peers a enjoyable second
The Commissar writes:
“Pls comment on ’sailor” Hutto, the common registration of AforR and FFF, the quick change that FFF did on the registration, the Fenton connection, etc.”
Why? If you’re honestly curious, here’s a phone number and e-mail address to the organization that I just googled up.
All questions and inquiries on this project can be directed to Opio Sokoni at (360) 241-1414. You can also email him at osokoni@yahoo.com.
Ask themselves to explain, I’ve never heard of ths ‘Appeal for Redress’ organization until you mentioned it, but even if they use the same Fenton Communications agency as MoveOn, what exactly does that prove? You know, every time a conservative brings up this MoveOn group, I like them even more.
John the Marine writes:
Long story short on your above novel. You are classic brain washed Leftie you beleive every line that they have fed you.
Maybe so, but it’s us lefties that have the monopoly on truth.
Oh, one more thing how did Haiti pose a threat to U.S. security? How did any of the examples of Bills military prowess threaten US security.
Whenever there is anarchy in the world, that IS a threat to US security. And as I understand it, those were peacekeeping missions. Do you not consider it a valid use of US forces control mass genocide happening in other countries? And regarding Bosnia, was there not an issue of the potential for chemical weapons that might be there to fall into the wrong hands, or perhaps sold to Iraq or Iran?
And before you call Iraq a “peacekeeping mission,” consider that Saddam gassed all those serbs when he was an ally with the US, and continued to be an ally. Iraq was by no means falling into anarchy under Saddam’s rule.
Nobody questions that Saddam was an evil tyrant of a leader who imprisioned and killed people, but our operations in Iraq have killed far more people in three+ years than the 30 odd years Saddam has ruled the country with an iron fist. I hardly doubt this would be called a “peacekeeping mission.”
And Saddam’s attitude toward terrorists was to throw them in prision or kill them. Now they’re called “insurgents.”
Respecting # 54. You site all the same reasons “W” used to invade (and it was indeed an invasion, not a peace keeping mission) Iraq. You make my point for me. Also, consider Saddam’s body count was in the hundreds of thousands. Enough said on that.
BTW I think you might have accidently put Serbs in when you ment kurds (3rd paragraph).
“And Saddam’s attitude toward terrorists was to throw them in prision or kill them. Now they’re called “insurgents.”
Sounds like you were pretty tight with Saddam. However, he supported the PLO and other Palestian terrosit groups. I think you might have ment to limit this point to Al Qedea (sp). Doesn’t matter to me though, terrorist are terrorists.
The funeral director paid for his tombstone. Offering vandalism as a excuse for failure to honor the dead, let alone her owns son’s death, is pretty weak Rabbit. But Your right. I’m not Cindy Sheehan. Or related to them, thank gawd. I’m just a fellow human being who finds it disgusting when a mother won’t even furnish her own dead son, who she uses as a martyr to beat everyone else with and to create her own propaganda machine, a simple stone marker for his death.
I notice you chose to to respond to my other counter points, thats too bad.
I’m just a fellow human being who finds it disgusting when a mother won’t even furnish her own dead son, who she uses as a martyr to beat everyone else with and to create her own propaganda machine, a simple stone marker for his death.
No, no, no! You’re a conservative who disagrees with her politics, simple as that, and you want to believe anything that paints Cindy Sheehan as an evil, unhinged person who will stop at nothing to push her sinister political ambitions down everyone’s throat.
Get real!
Cindy Sheehan is Casey’s mother, not you. I’m sure Casey’s family know where his grave is. Why should she subject her son’s grave to the kind of ugly hostility that gets directed at her, from people who ACTUALLY believe that patriotism is “Sit down and shut up.” Casey died serving this country, he doesn’t deserve his grave vandalized.
I notice you chose to to respond to my other counter points, thats too bad.
Trying to answer them all one at a time. I’ll get to them.
(I’m not sure where some of my posts are going, so please delete if this is a dupe)
I’m just a fellow human being who finds it disgusting when a mother won’t even furnish her own dead son, who she uses as a martyr to beat everyone else with and to create her own propaganda machine, a simple stone marker for his death.
No, no, no! You’re a conservative who disagrees with her politics, simple as that, and you want to believe anything that paints Cindy Sheehan as an evil, unhinged person who will stop at nothing to push her sinister political ambitions down everyone’s throat.
Get real!
Cindy Sheehan is Casey’s mother, not you. I’m sure Casey’s family know where his grave is. Why should she subject her son’s grave to the kind of ugly hostility that gets directed at her, from people who ACTUALLY believe that patriotism is “Sit down and shut up.” Casey died serving this country, he doesn’t deserve his grave vandalized.
I notice you chose to to respond to my other counter points, thats too bad.
Trying to answer them all one at a time. I’ll get to them.
It’s not a case of “believing”. It’s a case of fact. I have yet to here of any Right Wingers vandalizing actual tombstones of soldiers. Please cite me a premise.
Sheehan has vocally and physically supported Hugo Chavez and in fact was present for his bring down the American govenment speech and supported his speech: heehan thanked Chavez for “supporting life and peace.” She said earlier that she was impressed by his sincerity when they met privately on Saturday.
“He said, ’Why don’t I run for president?”’ she said. “I just laughed.”
If this giant step backward for the feminist movement in America is the best example of left wing politics grass roots movements you can present to me as evidence of your correctness, dedication and righteousness, then I honestly fear for your movement, sincerely.
“Casey died serving this country, he doesn’t deserve his grave vandalized.”
When has there ever been any indication that Cindy Sheehan’s son’s grave is in any danger of being vandalized? Who has threatened to do so? If anything the Right has been nothing but respectful concerning this fallen Marine (As it should be. God rest his soul. He deserves, and is, honored as a fallen hero. Semper Fi.). Honestly rabbit this is one of the poorest examples of strawman I’ve seen in a long time. In short it is a non-point.
When has there ever been any indication that Cindy Sheehan’s son’s grave is in any danger of being vandalized?
Because of this;
“Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who has set up a vigil near President George W. Bush’s ranch here, said Tuesday that she was “very disturbed” that a local resident had mowed down hundreds of small crosses bearing the names of other dead American troops”
[from the International Herald Tribune]
I can point to plenty of other examples of right-wing rage directed at people merely for voicing their opinions.
Who has threatened to do so? If anything the Right has been nothing but respectful concerning this fallen Marine
No, the right has used Casey in a cynical political game to attack Cindy Sheehan and paint her as a villian. Cindy Sheehan is Casey’s mother. Why do you think you have more right to speak for Casey than she does?
Sheehan has vocally and physically supported Hugo Chavez
So what? So are a lot of people on the left. Is that treason? Are you afraid of a little free speech? Are you afraid that a little speech by Sheehan will cause the country to slide into communism?
I’ve always felt that the more someone’s ideology is based on a house of cards, the more reflexively they’ll react when their foundations are shaken. Cindy Sheehan has every right to make a fool of herself, just as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter do on a regular basis, and quite lucratively I might add.
BTW I think you might have accidently put Serbs in when you ment kurds (3rd paragraph).
Yep, and I accidentally typed “Pal Tillman” instead of “Pat Tillman” and there’s probably a few minor typos spread about. Multitasking with work only leaves a few extra brain cycles for proof-reading.
Obviously your not clicking links but are asking us to check yours.
RE: Code Pink and Marxism Nothing silly about it, it’s fact.
Please show me how the Right is using Cindy. This should be interesting. No one has told her to to camp out in a field, no one even asked her opinion. She did that all on her own. Try another rhetoric. As John said, strawman.
Again no retribution on the numbers of base closure’s versus Clinton’s downsizing, or the correlation we are seeing due to that now.
RE: Code Pink and Walter Reed. Today is March 2nd. Not March 25th. And it’s not April. So they could not have been protesting the conditions at Walter Reed. Further more the Walter Reed “scandal” is less than one week old. Further more even more so, is the link I gave you that directly presents Code Pink slandering soldiers, belittleing them and making allegations to them as they are treated in out patient care. Again there’s no substance to your arguement versus the facts presented. Nor have you contradicted the fact they listed American Soldiers as “Killers” and “Murderers” on their own website. Further in regards to the so killed vigil. More Facts: The protesters hold signs that read “Maimed for a Lie” and “Enlist here to die for Halliburton.”…….Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Again, please explain how this type of *ahem* vigil is supporting our troops? As a former soldier I can’t see any form of support in that what so ever. And I have spent several months in Walter Reed in the late 1990’s.
A Point of view from an actual soldier at Walter Reed Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital “distasteful.”
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
“We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever,” Pannell, a member of the Army’s First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
“You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors’ guilt is the worst thing you can deal with,” Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.
“We don’t like them and we don’t like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed,” he said. “[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way.”
Bolded print is emphasis mine.
From your response:
Large groups that have some similar base ideologies tend to share some of the same people.
So your admitting then that the Democratic party is a socialist/Marxist leaning fundamental group?
So “residents of Fallujah” are automatically considered terrorists?
Though I think you might’ve stumbled on to something key here. How can you be winning the hearts and minds of Iraqi citizens when at the same time, be aware that any of those citizens can suddenly pull a gun on you? You don’t think there would be a tendency to shoot first, ask questions later? But then, that literally puts an end to winning hearts and minds. It’s a bit of a paradox, isn’t it?
Having been to the Middle East not less than 3 times I can answer several points here.
There is not a shoot first mentality. In the US Army there is never a shoot first mentality. You may thank the 120 members or so of Congress for that as ROE’s are reviewed regularly. No action is taken by the military without Congressional approval.
Further take a gander at any number of “MilBlogs” for direct posts from soldiers in the region for more on the facts on the area. Bill @ INDC for example, a sometimes commenter here who is currently embedded.
RE: Fallujah
Perhaps you missed the part where the Code Pink money supplied people in Fallujah to attack and kill 4 contractors who were delivering food for ESS Catering to the city. They then burned the bodies and drug them across a bridge. Want the footage?
Sorry, I don’t consider people who give money to folks who burn American corpses patriots or any variation of the word. Please try again.
So far Rabit, you’ve done very well to toe your party line but you haven’t really shown me much in the way of facts.
RE: The John Kerry transcript. Really now, you expect me to trust something just because John Kerry says it? While 19 other people say it wasn’t true?
In a court of law when 19 people say someone did something, chances are they did it. And the one person saying something different, chances are, he’s lying.
Ask John about Cambodia next time you get a chance.And how it’s seared in to his memory.
Obviously your not clicking links but are asking us to check yours.
I am, at least as much as everyone is clicking mine.
Please show me how the Right is using Cindy. This should be interesting. No one has told her to to camp out in a field, no one even asked her opinion. She did that all on her own. Try another rhetoric. As John said, strawman.
I never said the right was using Cindy, I said “the right has used Casey in a cynical political game to attack Cindy Sheehan and paint her as a villian” and I stand by this statement. I also never said that nobody died in Clinton’s military operations. I have “Black Hawk Down” on DVD, so I’m not sure why I would say that. A strawman is fabricating assertions someone else has made, then arguing against those rather than what they actually said. Maybe I do it too, but I don’t think so.
RE: Code Pink and Walter Reed. Today is March 2nd. Not March 25th. And it’s not April. So they could not have been protesting the conditions at Walter Reed. Further more the Walter Reed “scandal” is less than one week old.
Dude, that was last year!!! Nobody was acknowledging the terrible, rat-infested conditions that American vets were living in back then. It must have been the anti-Code Pink demonstrators that were blocking entrances. Your side were the ones who didn’t want the truth uncovered at Walter Reed. Shameful.
And conservative bloggers STILL refuse to cover Walter Reed, as Don Imus states “Why don’t conservatives support the troops?” I’ll quote the relevant line so you don’t need to click;
“During the past week I’ve gotten several links from some of the biggest liberal blogs/websites on the internet, Crooks & Liars, Think Progress, and Daily Kos. These are not sites that would normally link to this blog. As anyone who reads my blog knows I routinely slam liberal politicians and media. But these guys rose above politics to try and bring awareness to the problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Some might say they’re doing it as an opportunity to slam the Bush Administration. I don’t think that’s it. I think it’s a genuine concern for active duty soldiers and veterans.”
And he goes on;
“I wondered why I hadn’t received a single link from a conservative blog or website. I thought well they just didn’t like any of my posts. So I went and checked the right wing blogs I normally read when I get time, Redstate, Pajama Media, Hot Air, and Michelle Malkin. Except for Ms. Malkin, not one of these sites even mentioned the Washington Post Story or anything about Walter Reed that I could find. When Malkin talks about it. She was not able to rise above politics and used it as an opportunity to slam the liberal media and democrats. She even had the balls to say she wrote about this issue 8 years ago.”
I repeat, this is Don Imus, no friend of liberal or conservative.
“No, the right has used Casey in a cynical political game to attack Cindy Sheehan and paint her as a villian. Cindy Sheehan is Casey’s mother. Why do you think you have more right to speak for Casey than she does?”
1st I haven’t really spoken much about her son. Review above. I’ve asked you why this is such an issue.
2nd She has made him and his death in service a public matter. You can’t cream something from the mountain tops and then say,”No fair!” when people comment on the matter. Also, she has used his death as a probaganda tool for her own agenda. So, at the worst the evil righties who have attacked her are only reversing her own stratedgy against her. Nonissue to me.
rabit, JTM, Blood, et al,
If you register on the site, that might reduce the likelihood of comments going into moderation. I can approve them, but there’s a still a time lag, and an inconvenience for us all.
Your call. I’ll still approve ‘em when I see ‘em.
Further more even more so, is the link I gave you that directly presents Code Pink slandering soldiers, belittleing them and making allegations to them as they are treated in out patient care.
No, because none of that ever happened. That is a fact, verifiable fact.
Again, please explain how this type of *ahem* vigil is supporting our troops? As a former soldier I can’t see any form of support in that what so ever. And I have spent several months in Walter Reed in the late 1990’s.
Let me quote:
“WRAMC Building 18 of WRAMC is described in the article as rodent- and cockroach- infested, with stained carpets, cheap mattresses, and black mold, with no heat and water reported by some soldiers at the facility.”
“Security issues, including drug dealers outside the unmonitored entry. Injured soldiers stated they are forced to “pull guard duty” to obtain a level of security. In an attempt to alleviate the toll that Building 18’s condition is taking on the wounded soldiers, a staff team headed by a clinical social worker at WRAMC obtained a grant of $30,000 from the Commander’s Initiative Account for improvements;”
These were conditions reported in the Washington Post, and have been going on for over a year.
You seem to think that Code Pink was there to protest wounded soldiers? Now, how much sense does THAT make?! None at all! So, do you think it was wrong for Code Pink to hold vigils to bring these horrible conditions to public awareness?
The plot thickens. From ABC News:
“In the letter, Waxman charged that the Army used an unusual process to award a five-year, $120 million contract to manage the center to a company owned by a former executive of Halliburton, the scandal-prone government contractor once operated by Vice President Dick Cheney.”
Yes, Halliburton, the same contractor serving contaminated water to our soldiers. The same privitization process that gave us Abu Gharab interrogators.
You want to talk about base closings? How about the privatization of the military? Awarding million-dollar contracts to private companies to do jobs that the US military are supposed to be doing. Base closings are just a minor part of Cheney’s plan to convert the military into a private, for-profit corporation. This is what Republican-president Eisenhower warned us about in his very last speech as President.
When Walter Reed was privatized, there was a mass exodus of qualified medical people - the staff of 300 suddenly dropped to 60. THAT’s what Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pink clan were protesting. To say she was there to protest soldiers requires a complete detachment to common sense.
A Point of view from an actual soldier at Walter Reed Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital “distasteful.”
Don’t you think it’s fair to mention that a googling of ‘Kevin Pannell’ comes up with about 1,440 references. Is he the officially appointed go-to-guy for a good anti-Codepink story? Tell me why there are LOTs of Iraq vets who support Codepink’s actions? And tell me why Walter Reed is in the news right now?
So your admitting then that the Democratic party is a socialist/Marxist leaning fundamental group?
Why? They have nothing in common with each other.
1st I haven’t really spoken much about her son. Review above. I’ve asked you why this is such an issue.
You mentioned that she refused to buy him a tombstone. This is a non-issue, created purely to paint her as a villian. Questioning her motives as a mother shows the depths of sickness that the right will go to try to silence her words.
2nd She has made him and his death in service a public matter. You can’t cream something from the mountain tops and then say,”No fair!” when people comment on the matter. Also, she has used his death as a probaganda tool for her own agenda. So, at the worst the evil righties who have attacked her are only reversing her own stratedgy against her. Nonissue to me.
She lost her son, she has every right in the world to talk about him. To say that she uses Casey’s death as a propoganda tool for her own agenda is as ridiculous, hateful, and anti-American as saying that John Walsh used HIS son’s death as a propoganda tool for his own agenda, putting murderers and pedophiles behind bars. Her agenda is as simple and pure as this, to stop kids from dying in an unnecessary war just as her’s did. What part of that truth isn’t coming acrossed to you?
Or did you miss the “unnecessary war” part?
There is not a shoot first mentality. In the US Army there is never a shoot first mentality.
No, there shouldn’t be. But the fact remains, Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire.
You may thank the 120 members or so of Congress for that as ROE’s are reviewed regularly. No action is taken by the military without Congressional approval.
I fail to see how the approval of congress has anything to do with a soldier defending himself on the battlefield.
Perhaps you missed the part where the Code Pink money supplied people in Fallujah to attack and kill 4 contractors who were delivering food for ESS Catering to the city. They then burned the bodies and drug them across a bridge. Want the footage?
I’ve seen the footage. Now tell me how “Code Pink money supplied people in Fallujah to attack and kill 4 contractors who were delivering food for ESS Catering to the city” could have happened when (A) it was $600,000 in food and supplies, not money, and (B) the four contractors were killed on May 5th, 2004 - Code Pink donated their food and supplies in December of that year.
Of course, even then - you’d have to hold the premise that supplying food to residents of Fallujah automatically means you are assisting the enemy, which then means you believe that ALL residents of Fallujah are the enemy, therefore all residents of Fallujah were responsible for the deaths of those contracts. See, then you must not believe in that whole ‘winning the hearts and minds of Iraqi’s’ - because they are all our enemy.
God, I sound like Johnny Cochran!
Do you really care to hear the story of those 4 contractors who were killed in Fallujah? Why not listen directly to what their families have to say. It’s heart-braking, and
Actually, I should have included more of what Don Imus said, because it makes the point much better than I could. And, well, he’s a nationally syndicated talk show host who personally raised $10,000,000 for wounded veterans.
“I don’t know why conservatives don’t support the troops. You would think an issue as important as this would cause people to forget about politics for a few minutes. We can disagree about the war, how we got there, and how we’re going to leave. But everyone should be doing everything they possibly can to REALLY support these wounded American troops. Supporting the war, the President, and republicans or democrats, has nothing to do with supporting the troops.
I can assure you this story is only going to get bigger. Hopefully the conservatives can push aside politics and really support the troops.”
At this point I think we’re at a impasse.
Having sat in the hospital and watched Code Pink protest my actions and call us names as we enter the hospital, further me giving you a News Link stating exactly what they are doing, beyond you saying “Thats Silly!’ You haven’t shown me one single piece of evidence to counter it
Thank you for making my point about Fallujah. The cities people burned those men, drug them from their cars. 4 months later Code Pink sends them supplies, cash and other goodies. If thats not supporting the enemy nothing is and your definition needs some serious examining.
You fail to see what Congress has to do with soldiers defending themselves? Spoken as someone who must know little to nothing regarding military operations, and I say that not as a insult. No operation of the US Military goes one step out the door without Congressional or Committee approval and examination. This include’s ROE’s. Which means ultimately the basis for ROE comes from the government not the chain of command. A Unit commander can add too but s/he can not take away
Where are the conservatives regarding Walter Reed? see for yourself My own comments are their as well, calling for officer scalps regarding the performance there.
Fact: Walter Reed has been hosed since before 1980. My father spent over 6 years in that wonderful location, thanks to non privatized medicine The privatization of military medicine is and has been the best thing to happen in the US Military in 60 years
Here.
Let Me
Help You
Understand about military medicine.
CodePINK never mentioned to me, or any of the other soldiers at Walter Reed about conditions. Instead they chanted such phrases as “Murderer”
So let me help you one last time. They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. There you go One from Walter Reed Need more?
Real soldier supporting.
I really can’t explain it anymore than give you facts, linked facts.
And it’s not just Kevin, or me
Here in Missouri Code Pink attempted to forcibly take over a gas station
ut came the trash bags. To stunned motorists, the activists said things such as “no gas today,” “keep driving” and “we’re taking over.”
With a feathery boa wrapped around her Peaches T-shirt, Finken commandeered the easternmost pumps. She kicked off the chants with “money for health care!”
“Stop the war!” called the rest of the Code Pinkers.
Finken: “Funding for education!”
Code Pinkers: “Stop the war!”
Half the QuikTrip customers: “F*** you!”
Yeah, they are a real “peace” oriented group. Happily local law enforcement showed them the error of their ways and took them to jail.
I’m sorry Rabit, but this is my last post and dog in this hunt.
I’m not going to continually chase my tail with one arguement to another if your not even willing to believe the most simple and basic fact you can have: Your Own Two Eyes
Sorry, apparently imusblog.com isn’t actually written by Don Imus. Don Imus is a a lot angrier. Yet, how often is this story being picked up by the right-wing blogs. Very little. Why? When a wounded Iraq war veteran has to lie in their own urine, is this not the kind of outrage that would cause any American to protest treatment of soldiers at Walter Reed?
From Washington Post:
‘On Feb. 17, 2005, Kiley sat in a congressional hearing room as Sgt. 1st Class John Allen, injured in Afghanistan in 2002, described what he called a “dysfunctional system” at Walter Reed in which “soldiers go months without pay, nowhere to live, their medical appointments canceled.” Allen added: “The result is a massive stress and mental pain causing further harm. It would be very easy to correct the situation if the command element climate supported it. The command staff at Walter Reed needs to show their care.”‘
How long does it take beating a drum until people start to take notice? Why was there such an effort to defuse Code Pinks efforts, obscure their message, and continue allowing hellish conditions for wounded vets at Walter Reed to persist?
And why are most conservative blogs treating the story like it doesn’t exist or barely worth a mention? No, no, no, they are much more upset because some lefty blogger infiltrated their CPAC event and got a picture of himself with Michelle Malkin, therefore he must be a crazy Malkin stalker. (odd, Malkin herself doesn’t seem to think so)
And since you read milblogs, I’m sure you’re familiar with the Blackfive, certainly no lefty blog by any stretch. Read some of the comments on this post, wondering about the same lack of Walter Reed coverage from their side.
“You mentioned that she refused to buy him a tombstone. This is a non-issue, created purely to paint her as a villian. Questioning her motives as a mother shows the depths of sickness that the right will go to try to silence her words.”
Incorrect, Bloodspite did. I don’t falt him for it, but it was not one of my points.
“She lost her son, she has every right in the world to talk about him. To say that she uses Casey’s death as a propoganda tool for her own agenda is as ridiculous, hateful, and anti-American as saying that John Walsh used HIS son’s death as a propoganda tool for his own agenda, putting murderers and pedophiles behind bars. Her agenda is as simple and pure as this, to stop kids from dying in an unnecessary war just as her’s did. What part of that truth isn’t coming acrossed to you?
Or did you miss the “unnecessary war” part?
Rabit, at this point you are simply disregarding what I’m writing. I like a good discussion but not with a sign post. The Cindy Sheehan/John Walsh comparrison is stupid. “Unnecessary War” is your opinion not mine. So, yeh I guess I did miss it.
Rabit, at this point you are simply disregarding what I’m writing. I like a good discussion but not with a sign post. The Cindy Sheehan/John Walsh comparrison is stupid.
No, the comparison is valid until you can explain why Americans are dying in Iraq. What is their sacrifice for? If you can’t do that, then all that matters is that they are dying and people like Cindy Sheehan will continue to grow in numbers. It’s like watching 9/11, but in slow motion. The country is growing weaker and terrorism is growing stronger. How come you can’t see the obvious?
“Unnecessary War” is your opinion not mine. So, yeh I guess I did miss it.
It’s also the opinion of a very highly-decorated, valedictorian graduate of West Point (consistently within the top 5% of his class), a four-star general and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, possible 2008 Democratic candidate Wesley Clark.
Who, by the way, wrote this:
“I have the deepest sympathy and empathy with Cindy Sheehan. My son served in the Armed Forces and I worried about him every day. And, I carried a burden of guilt about his service, as I am sure most mothers and fathers do. Because, after all, we either encourage them, supported them, or sustained them in making this commitment to their country. My prayers and condolences are with every family who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or seen him or her come home forever scarred or crippled. And I thank them for their loved ones’ service and for their sacrifice. And I understand the depth of their feelings I believe, because every American trusts our leaders to use our men and women in combat only, only, only as a last resort. And in Iraq, this wasn’t the case. And we will probably never learn the full array of motives that lead our nation’s leaders to take us to this war. I warned at the time that it was “elective”–we didn’t have to do it. There wasn’t an eminent threat. So why did we? Cindy Sheehan, every mother and father of our service members, and every American has a right to know. It was a strategic blunder to go there. Now America sees it in hindsight. But those in power have responsibilities to do the right thing, and when they don’t they should be held accountable. Cindy is doing everything she can to hold them accountable. President Bush should talk to her and tell her the truth.”
That’s God’s truth.
Pirro: Not ready for prime time
South Carolina - the white vote
Clinton Lies
Like going hunting with Dick Cheney
Owens joining Clinton camp