[Preacherman]

I'm sure many of you know the Democratic Underground Web site. I go there often to see how the other side is reacting (I won't say "thinking") to issues of the day. However, I found there an article about our President and "his" war in Iraq that is so egregiously wrong, so negative, and so misleading that I wanted to throw it open to THR members for comment. You'll find it here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/04/05_letter.html).

I could rant on for hours about how misleading, false, negative and untrue many of the author's accusations are... but this wouldn't help. What we need to remember is that this sort of nauseating bilgewater is being circulated in our schools and colleges, our news media (well, most of them!), and our communities. We need to be aware of this, so that we can counter-attack whenever we can.

Comments?

[cuchulainn]

Comments? Padre, why do you do that to yourself? Hair shirts and self flagellation went out with the 15th century. ;)

[Preacherman]

Aaah, but Cuchulainn, the memories, the memories... :D

[Malone LaVeigh]

Why don't you specify where you think it's wrong and cite the contradicting evidence.

[TarpleyG]

Blah, blah, blah, blah,.......

Took the writer until halfway through to get to the point of the headline.

GT

[DRC]

Hmmm,

They pretty much lost me when they said the Reverend Moon was a right winger :) And Rupert Murdock??? I think I've figured it all out though. The media is all a big right winged conspiracy...from the left. Does that make sense? It doesn't? Well there you go then, it must be true from a liberal perspective :)

I use common sense4 and fact to base my ideologies on and yet according to DU I'm the uninformed one. I've read several sites like this one and they all have one thing in common; they base everything on what they "think" not what they "know".

Take care folks,

DRC

For Malone

General Electric made contributions to both parties in almost equal amounts while it was a little heavier on the Republican side. So NBC being owned by them hardly substantiates them being right winged.

There are a few statements being made that I won't even address because they are too ludicrous to waste the time on. The main one being Corporatizing the media causing the alleged problem. The media are corporations and corporations buy and sell other corporations it's a fact of business.

Much of the media being owned by people with political agendas? The last time I looked they all had political agendas of some kind and typically it was the journalist espousing their opinions on the air more so than the actual venue expressing it.

The Clear Channel being instrumental in starting pro-war rallies and bleating the administrations message? If it's what you believe in then it would stand to reason that's what you will espouse. However, this is specualtion only since the Clear Channels has also backed many of McCain's bills even those that go against the grain of one GW Bush but they are against anything anti-business as well. If they have close ties to the Bush family then so be it, DU.com should prove their insinuation if they wish to be believed not to mention Clinton had close ties to CNN with as much relevance and substantiation so I fail to see the relevance.

I could go on and on but the article is too long and would need to be addressed point by point but the afore mentioned are pretty good examples I think but if more detail is needed I will be happy to oblige.

Take care,

DRC

[Zander]

Why don't you specify where you think it's wrong and cite the contradicting evidence. -- MLSeems to me it would be a lot easier if you'd pick out something you think is true and try to support it. That wouldn't take very long...

[Dannyboy]

This might be the first time in the modern era that the media is blamed as a cause for war.


For instance, our M1A2 Abrahms tanks which were impervious to small arms fire, poured 7.62mm machine gun fire into miles of Iraqi trenches.
Yeah, we should have sent troops into those trenches with grenades, pistols, and bayonets to clear them out. Why do people insist on talking about subjects about which they have no understanding. Does he think it would have been more humane to have infantrymen clearing those trenches and getting killed themselves?
Other tanks with plows known as ACEs, or Armored Combat Earth movers, poured tons of sand into the trenches, burying dead, wounded and living Iraqi troops.
This I'm sure is pretty much common knowledge. Either way, it's quite simple, surrender or die. It makes me ill when idiots like this criticize the military when the only thing they know about war is that "it's bad."

[Malone LaVeigh]

Seems to me it would be a lot easier if you'd pick out something you think is true and try to support it. That wouldn't take very long...Well, I didn't start the thread with a broad assertion I didn't bother to back up. Actually, the article is very poorly written. But since you asked, there are a few good points in the first paragraphs:

the hallmark of democracy is to allow all citizens to voice their opinion, no matter how unpopular their view may seem to some people

No one in the anti-war movement likes Saddam Hussein and they will be relieved when he is dead and gone.If you can find me one quote by someone in a credible position in the US anti-war movement that approves of Saddam, I'll never post here again.

That said, most Americans are not informed about the real issues behind this military campaign.Recent poll has 45% of Americans believing Saddam was behind 9/11. 'Nuff said.

One of the reasons for this is the media as it exists today. It is important to understand that because of deregulation, television, radio, newspapers and other means of communication are consolidated in the hands of perhaps ten corporations.This isn't written very well. 100% of the media are not consolidated into a few corps. But 5-10 (depending on the source) of corps control a big percentage of the media in the US and world, so in essence, it's true.

For example, NBC is owned by General Electric, which is a defense contractor. GE has been accused of dumping one million pounds of carcinogenic PCBs into the Hudson River. They don't think they should have to clean it up. Understandably, NBC is not going to be scrutinizing this story in great detail.Can someone cite me coverage of this story by NBC? My point is that it ought to be easy to refute this guy's stuff, with the broad generalizations he uses. So, let's hear it.

Moon, who considers himself the new messiah, has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Bush family and his paper, The Washington Times, has always been a megaphone for the Republican party.I only have an opinion on the last of these statements. It's obviously true.

C'mon, I'm not going to go through the whole thing like this. If anyone here has arguments against what the article says, speak or don't waste our time.

[DRC]

The first are good points you bring up but I would doubt that very many would refute them. I too agree with the first two paragraphs on the article but it's not unlike baiting a question. Here's an example"

"Recent poll has 45% of Americans believing Saddam was behind 9/11. 'Nuff said."

Was the question "Do you think Saddam was responsible for 9/11?' or was it "Do you think that Saddam had any links to the group that organized the 9/11 attacks?"

Polls are typically loaded one way or another depending on what the pollers want the poll to show. I don't put much stock in polls because of this and neither should anyone else since it's not very telling of the larger populous; 1200 people do not voice the opinion of the nation.

Now before I post this next part let me say that I am not advocating that you never post here again. But is Jim McDermott a good enough example? He's anti war and he's in the US as well as the US Senate.

"If you can find me one quote by someone in a credible position in the US anti-war movement that approves of Saddam, I'll never post here again."

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1966

As to

"Can someone cite me coverage of this story by NBC? My point is that it ought to be easy to refute this guy's stuff, with the broad generalizations he uses. So, let's hear it."

Um, the only thing written that I can find regarding this is an accusation made by The Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club in an attempt to get Governor Pataki to allocate money for the EPF. So I'm wondering if it wasn't politically motivated especially since nothing ever came of it on either side? But then we are talking about the Sierra Club here aren't we? :)

As to the rest well as I said and then you said and now I'm saying again, it would take forever BUT it could be debunct very easily and effectively.

Take care,

DRC

[bountyhunter]

The problem with articles like this is that it makes people think there are no valid reasons to be opposed to the war, and that all who do oppose the war are lunatics. There is good cause to be alarmed at what is happening.

Question: Remember December 7, 1941 when Japan sent most of our fleet to the bottom of the pacific at Pearl Harbor. Do you know what the president did the next day?

Answer: went before congress to ask for a declaration of war. If you don't know why he did that, then you probably can't understand why people are so angry that GWB believes he has the authority to invade a country that poses no immediate threat to the US. HINT: read the constitution.

Question: According to the Bush administration, why was it so imperative that we must attack Iraq RIGHT NOW?

ANSWER: There have been many answers given, and they keep evolving. At first, there was "proof" they were about to detonate a nuclear bomb. They had some aluminum rods. But then, experts pointed out those rods were used to make conventional missiles and that there was no evidence they had progressed toward a nuclear bomb. A whitehouse spokeswoman said the only proof the critics would accept was "a mushroom cloud". Remember that?

The reason then became to win the war on terrorism. Saddam was harboring and training terrorists. Well, maybe, but so is Libya, Yemen, Jordan, palestine, pakistan, Saudi Arabia..... so why Saddam? He has NO connections to Al Quaida according to the world intel resources. In fact, Bin Laden loathes Hussein as a liar who uses Isalm to fool people into following him and has said so publicly and repeatedly. Yet, somehow, killing Hussein would win the war on terrorism and make us safe. Would I like to kill Hussein? Absolutely, but he isn't near the top of my list of people I'd shoot first (Bin Laden is, and the saudis who fund him with the second magazine)

QUESTION: Who is actually funding Bin Laden? ANSWER: The saudi's, specifically members of the saudi royal family for the most part. Our CIA has known this for years.

QUESTION: Who is harboring Bin Laden? ANSWER: Pakistan, which is where Bin Laden and his top men have been hanging out. Yet, Iraq is the root of all terrorism..?

So, why did we have to invade Iraq? Well, because Saddam was oppressing the people there. I agree. And the saudi's oppress 100% of the women in their country, and the various African countries slaughter large segments of their populations (to the point where the dead bodies actually fouled the rivers and made the water unsafe to drink). The world sucks, billions are oppressed and murdered, why did Saddam rate an invasion?

The answer is multi part: the big one is he tried to assassinate Bush Senior. The second is that Bush Jr needs somebody to align the wrath and hatred of the citizens toward after failing to even find Bin Laden. Saddam was good for that (and, as stated above, the illiterate masses have swallowed the BS that Hussein carried out the 9/11 attacks). Taking down Iraq also has an oil component, make no mistake about that. When the US occupies Iraq and sets up a puppet government, the weight of that boot will be felt throughout the region.

So, what will we accomplish, if and when we can stabilize the new regime in Iraq?

1) We will have a shaky government that will have to be propped up by a "peacekeeping force", either US/British alone or UN in makeup. They will walk around with targets on their backs and locate the suicide bombers by being their targets.

2) We will succeeed in giving the Arab states someone they hate even more than their local neighborhood bully-thug (Hussein), by being the latest western invader who has come to bring "freedom". If you want to know how much they will hate us for that, review some history texts about the region and you'll see that even the borders of their countries were given to them by "liberators". They love it when people show up with guns to bring them more freedom.

[Malone LaVeigh]

But is Jim McDermott a good enough example? He's anti war and he's in the US as well as the US Senate.I don't have the full quote in front of me, just did a quick google search, and can't find anyone really trying to explain what he was talking about. Your source is biased, to say the least. There seems to be some evidence he was talking about taking the Iraqis at "face value" over being willing to submit to inspections. I don't think that's the same as saying he approves of Saddam, but if anyone can show me it is, I'll keep my word.

[WonderNine]

Took the writer until halfway through to get to the point of the headline.

That's about par for a hitpiece. It helps to hide the author's intentions.

[AR-10]

I quit logging onto DU a long time ago. Facts are scarce and debate is not welcome.


the hallmark of democracy is to allow all citizens to voice their opinion, no matter how unpopular their view may seem to some people

While the above quote sounds good, the moderators of DU do not tolerate such thinking on their site.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Malone LaVeigh:
If you can find me one quote by someone in a credible position in the US anti-war movement that approves of Saddam, I'll never post here again.

I was going to try and take you up on this offer, but then I realized that there ARE NO credible people in the anti-war movement. And I was so hopefull that we would be saying ta-ta to you!

[Preacherman]

Cactus and others picking on Malone, please see my comment in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=17389&postid=215358). Whilst we may not agree with him, he has every right to post his opinion. Personal attacks on our members will NOT be tolerated.

[chaim]

This might be the first time in the modern era that the media is blamed as a cause for war. Um, the Spanish-American War was blamed (at least after the fact by historians) largely on the media. Seems certain newspaper barrons were kind of pushing the war. Of course, then it might have been true. Today, yeah right. If they believe that then how about selling them some nice Arizona beachfront property, they'd be the perfect target customers.:rolleyes:

[ahadams]

first off, what cuchulain said, only squared: I no more pay attention to the halucinations of the left than I do to the halucinations of other oddball groups - I don't bother with what the neonazis say either, as a f'rinstance.

Secondly, let's see, their major arguments were that they don't like the war, that the Allies killed a lot of the bad guys which resulted in a lot of the bad guys being dead, and, and, uh, they didn't like any of that either and it was all President Bush's fault oh and since they didn't think the bad guys were the *real* bad guys it was also bad because nobody had actually bothered to take their opinion into consideration (*hah!*)... did I miss anything?

BTW: did you folks see this bitUS marines discover PLF faction's bomb-making facility in Iraq (http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/ch/Qiraq-war-plf-training.R8Sh_DA7.html)

no links to terrorists, eh? sheesh!

oh, also BTW: one of the things CNN and the other leftist media have been ignoring is that that chem weapons dump earlier in the day - you know the one with the barrels marked "agricutural chemicals" and such, also tested positive for lewisite according to the guys on the ground with the FOX testing vehicle. In case you don't know Lewisite is MUSTARD GAS (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/Blister/ctc0020.asp) which is a WWI vintage blister agent which has no agricultural uses - only military uses.

ah well, but I'm rambling, sorry, anyway the DU should be left to the anonymity it so richly deserves!

[edamon]

dumbocrats are just pissed cause they see no future for them in 2004 and likely 2008.

it's the acts of a dying breed.

-d

[S_O_Laban]

Quote
But then we are talking about the Sierra Club here aren't we?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be the "Bravo Sierra Club":D

[Silver Bullet]

the hallmark of democracy is to allow all citizens to voice their opinion, no matter how unpopular their view may seem to some people

I certainly don't disagree with this statement. However, these people (the DUs) have no credibility with me on this issue because it seems they only take a stand on this point when it's to their advantage (Republicans do the same thing). For example, when David Horowitz was speaking at a California university campus on what he thought was wrong with slave reparations, the students shouted him down and wouldn't let him speak. When an unknown radio disk jockey made the comment a few years ago that someone should be "dragged behind a pickup," he was fired. The left is all for free speech, as long as you agree with them; otherwise, they label it "hate speech" and claim it shouldn't be tolerated. When you debate them on an issue, as soon as they run out of facts they start screaming and try to prevent you from speaking.

They also have no credibility with me as anti-war demonstrators: where were they when Clinton was invading Somalia and Kosovo ? Their silence then convinces me that the Iraq war is not an issue of conscience for them, but of politics

I'll never post here again.
ML: Please don't leave. I disagree with a lot of your posts, but you always make very reasoned arguments, a rarity among the dissenters here. I might disagree with your statements, but you always make me think about why I disagree. I've seen posters here complain about dissenters not coming over to debate. Well, lads and lassies, here's a dissenter: debate !, but don't get personal if you're getting your butt handed to you, get better !

[DRC]

Basically if an interpretation is made that all McDermott is saying is that Saddam should be trusted then I guess there isn't much else to say. I'm trying to find information on the other two Senators that went with him in his quest for understanding for Saddam Hussein also.

McDermotts words are definitely anti-war and his objective was to bolster Saddam. Saying Saddam should be trusted is backing Saddam, but again if a person does not see it that way then there's not much else myself or anyone can say to make one understand. As I said I am not advocating that you not post here anymore and in fact do share the same sentiment as Silver Bullet. You're intelligent and make a pretty good case when you write and it keeps me sharp as well as keeps me thinking. Sometimes I even start to drift more your direction... but then I take two asprin, lie down and wait for it to pass :)

Seriously the links are more to make a point. There are anti-war protestors and credible (if you can call them that) that are for Saddam. They think he is misunderstood and is willing to comply and is nothing more than a victim of circumstance. You don't have to be pro-war and in fact I would be willing to bet money that the majority of folks out there are opposed to going to war in general except when necessary. Presently the majority thinks it's necessary my self included. I'm not for going to war at the drop of a hat but I also don't consider 12 years of violations as a drop of the hat either.

Well, here you go this is a full interview and I'm looking for a link to the news cast of McDermott and his two colleagues while in Bagdad. The news cast is much more telling than the stateside interviews not to mention you can actually see him saying these things.

http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Attack%20on%20America/McDermottTraitor.htm

Take care and I'll post more as I find it.

DRC

[Malone LaVeigh]

The way it looks to me, he was trying to negotiate the Iraqis into allowing inspections. And he was trying to get the US to negotiate in good faith. I fully support that. You can't negotiate if you don't take the others at face value. The point of negotiating was to get a position to which Iraq could have been held. And they did, eventually, agree to allow free access. But Bush wasn't interested in that.

It's a shame misguided "patriots" like on that site you posted consider disagreement with the president to be treason. It's not a very American (or intelligent) position, if you ask me.

[twoblink]

Obviously, you all are going about this all wrong.

Place a rifle on the floor, and park an M1Abram next to it. Find about 1000 Iraqi's to charge at a reporter, and ask him/her, given a choice, would you rather hide in the M1A or pick up the M16? Yeah..

They need to shutup and quit while they are behind..

[DRC]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

I'm still looking for a couple of things and yes I agree that the site my link came from is very biased but that wasn't why I posted it. I posted it because it is a part of an actual transcript. So much of the McDermott contraversy is...well, missing, almost like it magically disappeared. The New broadcast that I saw was much more telling but I won't simply say what was on it since my saying it would have little or no credence, but I'll find it and post it.

For now here's another one:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--professor-mogadis0328mar28,0,365854.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Again not advocating that if anything is found to your satisfaction (which nothing will be I'm sure) that you stop posting. I find it intresting conversation and I mean that sincerely.

Take care and when I find it I'll post the McDermott links. It's intresting stuff and he's a good person to think twice before trusting.

DRC

[Malone LaVeigh]

You know, I have to admit, I totally ignored that jerk when that happened, but I have to agree, one could reasonably consider him part of the anti-war movement. I'm not sure he's a very "credible" part, but he's obviously against the war, and someone thought he was credible enough to have speak at the teach-in. I suppose I could say calling for the defeat of the US military is not the same as supporting Saddam, and that would technically be correct. I would like to know more about what he said, so I can try to ascertain his meaning a little better, but you may be right.

I'm clear he represents, if anything, a very small sliver of anti-war thought in this country. I'm also pretty clear that to find an equal extreme on the pro-war side, one need not look far past the administration. But I might well have made too broad of a statement. I'm willing to entertain any thoughts on this, and will accept the judgement of my fellow THR members.

Heck, I might even get more work done.