Iraq death tolls exceeds that of the war

grampster

October 29, 2003, 02:19 PM

First, my comments are not construed to diminish the value of any American life lost in Iraq. The sacrifice made by our volunteer citizen soldier, who engaged himself willingly into this task, is heroism at its finest.

But what bothers me more than the sorrow I feel for the lost warriors and their loved ones is the willing obstruction of reporting all of the truth that is occuring in Iraq/A-stan, and the willingness of the Sheeple to believe the one sided incomplete crap being dished out by the media. The frustration is magnified but the inability to hope for any kind of balance to be presented by the Mass Media. Where is their conscience? (sp?)

I thought the free press, with its mantra of, "The people's right to know" had an ethical obligation to present the facts, all of them. Isn't it as much "news" to report the reopening of a power plant that was attended by hundreds of cheering Iraqi's? Guess not. It was not reported anywhere.

What about the fact that the conditions in post invasion Iraq are better than during Saddam's reign of terror. The bulk of the population is receiving water, electricity, schools are opening, athletic events are occuring, businesses are beginning to thrive. A police force is being built, laws are being contemplated, disparate groups of citizens are uniting to form a government based upon a free society (as understood by the culture in the area) as much as possible. In three or four years a paradigm will have occurred that will be good for the entire world. Why is it not allowed to be reported. Equally sad is the Democrat Party constantly bashes the administration without having any solutions or alternatives yet hoping to regain power through distortion and propaganda. Even sadder, if they get the presidency back and the legislature, they will need to either continue to stay the course or humiliate us. If they stay the course, that course will have been set by President Bush and they (Dems) stand to reap the credit because it will take some time to play out. Just like Clinton took credit for the foundation laid by President Reagan, and now Bush gets the discredit for the foundation laid by Clinton, Clinton's recession.

As for the United Nations being in control, what about the former Yugoslavia? The UN has been "in control" there for how long now? Have things changed any? Any progress made? Does anyone really believe if the UN left tomorrow, the day after the genocide would not start up again? The bulk of the Iraqi population supports the dismantling of the "Butcher of Baghdad's" regime. They hate the UN because the UN propped up Sadaam. Where is the reporting of that? Of course they are upset and discouraged at the same time. They are watching foreign terrorsits, supposedly in their name, kill and destroy and try to stop the orderly progression into the modern age of freedom. The man on the street prefers an American GI to Saddams's thugs and the worthless Blue Helmets. Look at the UN's successes in Africa..........having trouble thinking of one? I have friends who have friends on active duty in Iraq and A-stan and I get the benefit of e mails from "The Front". What a different story from those who are engaged there, as opposed to what you read or hear from the Leftist Press in America.

On the the selfish side, would one rather engage in the war on terror on Afghan or A-stan soil and kill the monsters in their lairs, or would you have them come here and fight? About oil? Cripes how stupid are those of you that knee jerk that one around. Sure it's about oil.....do you not want to drive your car, heat your home or have all the products that exist because of oil? Do you want OBL in charge of Opec? Sadaam? The Mullahs of the apostate Wahabist Islam? Well, we need alternative energy sources, they say.....no Duh! But what do we do in the meanwhile? Walk to the store and buy..........what. No food, the tractors don't run on water!

The more I write this, the more angry I get at those simplistic, stupid, moronish peacnicks who are mirrors of that jack ??? drunken, drugged up nit wit in California who said......"Can't we all just get along....? Well, I submit, no we can't. Especially when the ones who don't want to get along also want to kill you where you stand, and your children and your dogs and cats as well. THis is a cruel world, not nirvanna. Peace is through power not inaction. RANT MODE IS CRANKING UP.......whew, calm down...END OF RANT!

:banghead: :fire: :barf:

Gordon Fink

October 29, 2003, 02:31 PM

American soldiers will continue to be assassinated in Iraq until they have all been withdrawn. That is the conqueror’s burden.

~G. Fink

Jonesy9

October 29, 2003, 02:51 PM

we surpassed that milestone over a month ago, the death toll is now approaching 400. I guess they are parsing words and seperating "combat" deaths for other deaths. I remember reading somewhere that soldiers injured in combat who later died do not have to classified as combat deaths but do not have the source.

Either way, the death grip on real information coming out of Iraq is impressive. The last thing we need is the military allowing an pictures of flag draped caskets or dead or injured soldiers to show up anywhere before the election. Bush has been great about not attending to any soldiers or funerals and the media has be well behaved in not mentioning it or his lack of press conferences. There will be time for that when it is more politically expedient. the less average Americans know about Iraq, the better for the re-election effort.

My only fear is that some of the GOP in the House and Senate are starting to see Iraq as a big white albatross. Bush needs to clamp down on them and get them in line until after the election. Lotts' comments of "mowing them all down" are not flattering. Keeping Gen. Boykin in there is also a mistake. It politically mollifies some of the chrisitan base but the cost of that pandering is too high IMHO.

G. Fink has a point, we created the mess, we get to clean it up.

DRC

October 29, 2003, 02:57 PM

"So basically, the forest fires are a result of the fact that the forests are there?"

No. The forest fires running amok are a result of not thinning out and managing the forested areas. The fires were started by arsonists. Thick undergrowth concentrates the heat and intensity of the fires (more concentrated fuel) allowing them to spread with little resistance. When trees grow close together it makes it easier for a fire to spread like the Domino effect. Hence the reason the firefighters are having diffuclty containing the fire and are more or less doing preventative measures and little more. In essence they are waiting for the fire to basically burn down to a point where they can actually do something about it.

"OK, maybe. And if I chose to cut off my head I would never get brain cancer...."

Yes. If you cut off your head you will not, in fact, get brain cancer. Good observation ;)

DRC

cordex

October 29, 2003, 03:07 PM

So basically, the forest fires are a result of the fact that the forests are there? OK, maybe. And if I chose to cut off my head I would never get brain cancer....
So to you, logging of any sort means 100% clearcut? Either the forest is there or the loggers have chopped the whole thing down?

There is good logging and there is bad logging. Facinating that you can't see a distinction.
Any news story that presents facts which are not flattering to the Bush administration is automatically asumed to be biased.
By some, yeah.
On the other hand, others automatically assume anything not flattering to Bush and Co to be unbiased and gospel truth.

Both groups are deluding themselves.
past government fire suppression policies have more to do with our current forest fire problems than folks concerned with keeping open space open.
Yup. Is tradeoff.

Americans soldiers will die as long as they're on assignment. Period.

Balog

October 29, 2003, 03:34 PM

Hi Davey. It seems biased becuase it is uniformly negative, and because of the language it uses. Presenting only the facts that support a particular point of view, and doing so in a negative and defeatist way; yeah, seems biased to me. Oh and nice pic btw. Ad hominem is valid if you use pictures instead of words.

DaveB

October 29, 2003, 03:43 PM

By golly, you're right.

Bad News = Bias, specifically the filthy liberal media.

Good News = Fair and Balanced.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I was having trouble following W's reasoning that the escalating frequency of attacks on our people is proof that we are winning. You have shown me the error of my ways.

The minkey picture was directed at those who listen only to sources they already agree with, and pretend that bad things happen only to bad people.

db

Balog

October 29, 2003, 04:07 PM

Way to ignore what I said Davey. Let me repeat it with emphasis It seems biased becuase it is uniformly negative, and because of the language it uses. Presenting only the facts that support a particular point of view, and doing so in a negative and defeatist way; yeah, seems biased to me.

I have never been able to make up my mind as to the appropriateness of our actions in Iraq. Regardless, this is the sort of "journalism" that made the Tet Offensive into a political victory even though it was a abject failure militarily. I have no objection to hearing bad news. I never said that the info was untrue. I said I suspect the choice of what is presented, and the way it is presented. I want to know the truth of what's happening, not just a "we're screwed now" alarmist recounting of every bad thing that's happening. I want to see both sides. Let me ask you this. When Fox News reports something good happening in Iraq, do you accept it unquestioningly, or do you suspect their motives? If you do suspect them of bias, does this mean that you are being unreasonable? So why does questioning this report seem so unreasonable? And yer minky's still ad hominem:p

toro

October 29, 2003, 04:15 PM

During the 50s when I was in school, we would see films of how wonderful the logging industry kept the Forrest. They would cut down the dead trees and and they would thin the Forrest. Much the same way a hunter would now thin the deer population. They would talk about putting fire lanes in the Forrest so that fires would not jump from one location to another. That was what we learned. Also while the loggers cut down the trees, they would plant saplings to replace what they cut.

Now everythiing dead is left for the little animals in the Forest. You know, like Thumper and Bambi. Instead of helping these little creatures, the Forrest fires are now killing all the animals that the tree huggers are trying to save. Don't make sense to me.

Just think about those soldiers. It is very sad to know that many more may die. Think about the other wars. How many died in World War I? --4,345,000. These were US Troops. Every death is very sad. And I believe every man or woman who is in uniform is a hero. I also believe they know more about the connection between Bin Laden and Sadaam then they can tell us. I think they are doing this to make a safer America and this is why the soldiers are there. I also know of a soldier who came back and was killed in an automobile accident. We need to count how many people are killed in the drug wars in our cities. I'll bet it is more in a week than the ones killed in Araq.

Mrs. Toro

_________________________________________
Ecclesiastes 2:26
For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. this also is vanity and vexation of spirit.

DaveB

October 29, 2003, 04:21 PM

I didn't ignore what you wrote. I just couldn't envision how to report on dead American soldiers in an upbeat way.

Defeatist? See my comment about "more dead soldiers = progress".

And,

Do you have a lisonce for that minkey?

You do bring up an interesting point, viz, can a picture of a non-hominid mammal ever be ad hominem?

db

cordex

October 29, 2003, 04:31 PM

Dave,
Can you spot the difference in the following three reports?

1. The Big Bad Wolf maliciously destroyed the homes and livelihoods of two downtrodden little pigs in a violent attempt to slaughter and consume each of the peaceful, helpless hogs so he could grow even fatter. A third brave pig built a suitably strong home and was able to gather his friends to ward off the marauding Wolf.

2. A hungry wolf in search of food huffed, puffed and blew down two pigs' houses but was stopped at the third pig's house because it was built of brick and was therefore too strong to blow down.

3. Three dirty swine are holed up in a compound today after evading capture. Twice a heroic Wolf was able to breach the filthy perimeter of a pig's home, and twice the occupants escaped detention - running to join their cult leader in his bunker.

Seeing bias does not make someone quite the willfully ignorant individual you make them out to be.

All that said ... the article struck me as only mildly biased, if at all.

Balog

October 29, 2003, 05:00 PM

cordex: that was priceless. A fine illustration of the use of sarcasm in serious debate.
And if you'll recall I said the report "seems a little biased." I was referring to defeatist reporting in general with my more drastic comments. Should have made that more clear.

DRC

October 29, 2003, 05:26 PM

DaveB,

"I just couldn't envision how to report on dead American soldiers in an upbeat way."

There is no upbeat way to report on dead soldiers but when one reports on the death toll and then follows up with how bad everything is in Iraq and that we're in a "quagmire" and Bush has no direction and is accomplishing nothing all the while parading pictures of destruction and reporting about killing you get a particular picture in your head. Is it your own picture or one that's been fed to you?

What you don't hear about are the things that are going on in terms of progress. Why? Because good news doesn't sell, but it's still important and paints a completely different picture. 76% of Iraqi's polled want the US there. The governing body being set up in Iraq is a conglomeration of many different groups all working together to get things running and manageable. Afghanistan has almost completed its constitution and has set up a working government that is working with the US on policy to the region. People are going back to work, business is growing and people are close to having a representative government something they've never had.

Are there still attacks going on? Yes. Is it because we made these people mad or that Bush failed? No. These people are terminally mad and could care less about Bush and have their eye on the destruction of anything that goes against their beliefs. They are nondiscrimenant when it comes to destruction and they were there doing what they're doing now long before we ever got there. The major conflict is over but the war goes on and no one except the press has ever said otherwise.

Take care,

DRC

DaveB

October 29, 2003, 05:41 PM

DRC, I understand that anything that is seen is open to interpretation, and anything written is a product of biases and beliefs and filters, whether intentionally or not.

My issue with you is that you seem to see bad news reported badly as the result of bias, and I see virtually all reporting as a result of spin and manipulation. The US military controls almost all reporting in Iraq. Isn't it logical that what we see is some of the most positive (for US consumption) stuff there is, and that the really awful stuff is hidden? This is classic propaganda technique: skew everything to one side, so that the other side seems extreme.

You mention a poll. Zogby himself says that his results were 'spun' by the admin so as to paint as positive a picture as possible. He doesn't quite use the "LYING" word, but he comes real close.

I'm going home now; we can continue this tomorrow.

However, one more dig is in order.

Bush says that the attacks are the work of terrorists, Hussein loyalists, Al Queida, etc (outside agitators).

Is it possible that the attacks are being carried out by the military-age population of an Islamic country that was invaded and occupied by a 'Christian' power? Is it possible that the Iraqi people's dislike of SH is less than their dislike of being occupied?

The surest way to bring together the people of a country is to give them a common enemy. Screw Saddam. We're the enemy now.

db

w4rma

October 29, 2003, 06:05 PM

We've got problems in Afghanistan too. :(

Senators Worried Afghanistan Falling Apart

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two influential U.S. senators questioned the stability of the Afghan government on Wednesday and warned the U.S. envoy and ambassador-designate to Kabul that the country may fall apart on his watch.

"We are in jeopardy of losing Afghanistan to become a failed state again," Sen. Joseph Biden told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing on the nomination of Zalmay Khalilzad as ambassador to Kabul.

"Are you confident that somehow you are not going to go out for an ambassadorship in which things, I wouldn't say fall apart at the seams, but nevertheless seem to be continually unraveling?" asked Sen. Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the committee.
…
The Bush administration has given Afghanistan a lower priority than Iraq, as reflected in its request that the U.S. Congress approve $20 billion for rebuilding Iraq and about $1 billion for Afghanistan.
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/afghan_usa_dc
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=190116

Some stats for Iraq only:

TOTAL US wounded in Iraq since March 20th: 2076 (Avg of 9.39 per day)
TOTAL US fatalities: 358
TOTAL UK fatalities: 51
TOTAL fatalities from other members of the "coalition": 5
Average of 1.86 "coalition" fatalities per day for 223 days.
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

About 13,000 Iraqis, including as many as 4,300 civilians, were killed during the major combat phase of the Iraq war, according to a US research group.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3223523.stm

Drjones

October 29, 2003, 07:27 PM

Just a thought about how gleefully our liberal media reports the death toll in Iraq:

The war lasted what, a month? Two?

It ended when; in April? May?

What month is it now? :scrutiny:

Thank you

Drjones

October 29, 2003, 07:30 PM

There is no upbeat way to report on dead soldiers but when one reports on the death toll and then follows up with how bad everything is in Iraq and that we're in a "quagmire" and Bush has no direction and is accomplishing nothing all the while parading pictures of destruction and reporting about killing you get a particular picture in your head. Is it your own picture or one that's been fed to you?

Or how last night dan rather reported the death of three more Americans in Iraq and then smugly says, "but President Bush still claims he's making progress in Iraq."

Yessir, no bias there.

:rolleyes:

greyhound

October 29, 2003, 07:56 PM

Any news story that presents facts which are not flattering to the Bush administration is automatically asumed to be biased.

Actually, the way all this gets reported makes me sick. The whole war is one big political football with the real emphasis being the 2004 election.

Bad news = quagmire

Good news = all is well

Can't we somehow get some real info on what's going on over there, minus the spin? Every little thing, from letters home to the opening of the Burger King, is being played as the quagmire/all is well debate.

As for me, the pro-Bush/anti-Bush/Republican/Democrat angle of this ended once the first troops hit the ground. That does NOT mean that the Administration is not due for some criticism, but lets save it for after its all over. (Not that that is possible in an election cycle).

I guess that's my point - given that actual military victory (i.e winning the battles, actually occupying the country, etc) was a given, every sinlge thing - both pro and anti Bush- since, has been about the 2004 election.

And to think that some said after 9/11 we would show that WE would pick up the mantle of the Greatest Generation.

ReadyontheRight

October 29, 2003, 08:18 PM

If in March 2003 you had been told that...

-The US would invade Iraq
-Our military would traverse the entire country of Iraq
-Saddam Hussein would be out of power
-His armies would be gone
-US forces would be getting the utilities back up, re-opening schools, etc.
-No oil wells would be on fire
-Iraq would be liberated from the Iraqi army and the "elite Iraqi Republican guard"
-Less than 500 brave US soldiers would give their lives - certainly each loss is a tragedy, but far fewer than predicted

...by October 2003 -- EIGHT MONTHS LATER

I suspect that you would consider it quite an amazing feat. Which it is.

The only "quagmire" is the one the Democrats want to invent to regain power. I consider the Democrat candidates to be fanning the flames of terrorism in Iraq. One downside to the new liberty in Iraq is that the terrorists are energized by the effect they think they are having on Americans when they watch their now-legal satellite TVs.

ReadyontheRight

October 29, 2003, 08:21 PM

As for me, the pro-Bush/anti-Bush/Republican/Democrat angle of this ended once the first troops hit the ground. That does NOT mean that the Administration is not due for some criticism, but lets save it for after its all over.

Excellent points greyhound.

cracked butt

October 29, 2003, 08:34 PM

I wonder how many Americans have been killed in homicides in DC, NYC, LA, Baltimore, Chicago let alone the rest of the blue areas of the map of the USA this year in comparison to all of Iraq this year. I wonder why the press isn't screaming that America is an extremely and hostile place to live and Americans should leave?

LawDog

October 29, 2003, 08:43 PM

"Their deaths brought to 116 the number of U.S. troops killed in hostilities since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1, surpassing the 115 killed in the war launched on March 20 to topple Saddam Hussein."

There is a significant difference in Iraq. In Iraq, our military is on the ground, shooting back, kicking in doors and doing something about it.

USMC barracks, Beirut, 23 OCT 1983, 242 dead.

See, in 'normal' times, that is, the Good Old Days...

Torrejon, Spain Restaurant Bombing, 12 APR 1984, 18 U.S. military dead.

...before President Bush started his quote/unquote "unjust" war...

Berlin Discoteque Bombing, 5 APR 1986, 2 U.S. soldiers dead, 79 injured

...when servicemen got killed by terrorists...

USMC Lt. Col William Higgins, 17 FEB 1988, kidnapped and executed.

...it was a page 5 story in the media and not one bloody thing got done about it...

Khobar Towers Bombing, 25 JUN 1996, 1996, 19 military personnel dead, 240 injured.

...The military bends over and takes it time and time and time and bloody well time and again...

U.S.S. Cole, 12 OCT 2000, 17 sailors dead, 39 injured

...and nobody gives a good Goddess-be damned.

Pentagon. 11 SEP 2001

Now that the military has a chance, now that the military can shoot back, now that the military can fight back, now all of a sudden it's a crisis?

Where the hell were these bozos who are crying about military deaths when the military has been dying unavenged for the past 20 YEARS?!

Huh? Where?

LawDog

w4rma

October 29, 2003, 08:51 PM

My gosh there is some serious denial going on here.

Senate Defies Bush On Iraq Assistance
Loan Provision Approved in 51 to 47 Vote
…
The Senate vote was a rare defeat for Bush in the GOP-led Congress, and it came after his intensive personal involvement. It indicated the depth of misgivings about the request among lawmakers of both parties and the constituents who have flooded them with protest letters and calls. Bush has maintained that a loan would confirm Middle Eastern suspicions of U.S. motives in Iraq, but Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said no amount of money is going to change the minds of those who believe the administration invaded for Iraq's oil.

"I don't want to give in to a great lie. You can't buy your way out of this problem," said Graham, one of the five Republican co-authors of the Senate's loan provision. "You can't take $10 billion of taxpayer money, people are losing their jobs, to buy your way out of a great lie. It would be terrible if the people of this country who have sacrificed so much wound up not getting a dime back."
…
But in the Senate, eight Republicans -- many of them usually reliable Bush supporters -- abandoned the president. They were Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.), John Ensign (Nev.), Graham, Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Sam Brownback (Kans.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine).

Four Democrats voted against the amendment: Zell Miller (Ga.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.).
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38331-2003Oct16.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=548383

Drjones

October 29, 2003, 08:54 PM

DU as a source?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What's next; ya gonna quote sarah brady on gun control?

makarov1

October 29, 2003, 08:58 PM

The sophistication of recent attacks (timing devices, remote control detonation, coordinated small arms fire ) seems to indicate that the Republican Guard and Sadaam's thugs are far from finished. I realize that most of Iraq is relatively peaceful, but Baghdad and areas loyal to Sadaam will continue to be trouble spots for a long time. Sadaams thugs operate in the Sunni areas because they are allowed to by the local populace. in regions where there is little support for Sadaam (and there are many, including most of the south and the vast majority of the north, where hatred of Sadaam runs deep ) attackers cannot operate freely, and if they do, they operate at great risk to themselves.

In a guerilla war, the media will naturally follow the blood trail. President Bush is aware of this, and is attempting to put a positive spin on a guerilla war that is just starting to heat up in Iraq. Some Iraqi leaders in the governing council are already suggesting heavy handed measures in order to crush the insurgency and restore order. If George Bush cares about his political future, which I'm sure that he does, he may have to at least consider some of these heavy-handed measures, especially in areas where the civilian population is anti-American.

w4rma

October 29, 2003, 08:59 PM

No, the Washington Post is the source (front page story, btw):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38331-2003Oct16.html

The article above, published in the Washington Post, was talked about on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=548383

…
Senior Republicans have begun raising concerns about the administration’s strategy in Iraq amid daily attacks on U.S. forces there.

But congressional Republicans still echo President Bush’s overall positive assessment of reconstruction, even as some warn of political trouble unless signs of improvement become clearer fast.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who recently compared aspects of the conflict to Vietnam, yesterday said U.S. forces need to be more proactive.

“To set up roadblocks after the bomb goes off is not the answer,” he said. “We’ve got to get into prevention.”
…
Asked whether he favored any policy changes in Iraq, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) responded: “We need to have a different mix of troops, is the key. We may need to move some troops around.”

Lott suggested moving more troops from the relatively stable south closer to the region around Tikrit, where attacks on U.S. forces have been common. He said there was a need for more trained military police, adding that his comments were not a criticism.

“Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought it was going to be,” Lott said. In a sign of frustration, he offered an unorthodox military solution: “If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.”
…
http://www.thehill.com/news/102903/gopunity.aspx
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=189802

Drjones

October 29, 2003, 09:02 PM

Please don't pollute THR with that filth.

w4rma

October 29, 2003, 09:07 PM

Drjones, it does not help anyone to ignore the reality of the situation, IMHO.
http://tubes.ominix.com/art/a/animals/see-no-evil.png

Drjones

October 29, 2003, 09:09 PM

That's very cute, but you don't get it and won't, since you're probably one of them.

w4rma

October 29, 2003, 09:10 PM

I get it. And it is well known here on The High Road that I post there.

fallingblock

October 30, 2003, 02:01 AM

"-Less than 500 brave US soldiers would give their lives - certainly each loss is a tragedy, but far fewer than predicted

...by October 2003 -- EIGHT MONTHS LATER

I suspect that you would consider it quite an amazing feat. Which it is.

The only "quagmire" is the one the Democrats want to invent to regain power. I consider the Democrat candidates to be fanning the flames of terrorism in Iraq. One downside to the new liberty in Iraq is that the terrorists are energized by the effect they think they are having on Americans when they watch their now-legal satellite TVs."
************************************************************

The democrats will do anything to regain power, to include distorting the outstanding successes already achieved in Iraq into "a quagmire".:mad:

Indeed, as in the case of the Tet Offensive, a defeat would then be seized from the jaws of victory:uhoh:

w4rma is indeed one of 'them' (look at the reference to the DU mouthpiece, "The Washington Post" :eek: ), but I gotta say that monkey is the spittin' image of Howard Dean, especially with regard to his stance on gun control:D

ReadyontheRight

October 30, 2003, 07:44 AM

“Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought it was going to be,” Lott said.

Yeah -- He didn't think there would be a 5th column here in the US shouting "US out of Iraq" every time some terrorist murderer blows himself up.

The attacks are getting more sophistocated because the smart ones in the organizations think it's working when they watch American TV. The Democrat candidates using our troops as political fodder makes me ill.

Old Fuff

October 30, 2003, 08:13 AM

DRC

October 30, 2003, 05:19 PM

Hello DaveB,

I do understand what you're saying and do agree to an extent.

Interpretation is what every discussion, arguement and or disagreement on THR is derived from. Mine, yours, his, hers, theirs...etc. Interpretation is what we are all doing and trying to come up with as plausible a scenario as we can with the information available (regardless of how skewed it may be) If you see all reporting as a result of spin and manipulation that is your prerogative and you may very well be right in that respect and I don't deny that at all.

"This is classic propaganda technique: skew everything to one side, so that the other side seems extreme."

So which side is skewing the information? This is a classic propaganda technique for sure and is used by everyone bar none. So which side is propagandizing???

War is ugly and the really awful stuff is definitely hidden from view. Always has been, always will be.

Polls just like statistics are subjective. To coin a phrase I just used; always have been, always will be. If someone is asked to skew their numbers to show one thing there is absolutely no way to go back and prove or disprove something that is an inherent inconsistancy. In a situation like you described, regarding Zogby and the admission, that is about the only way you can find these things out but this kind of thing is done more frequently than you and I will ever know unfortunately. So I am in agreement with "LYING" and polls and the requests for thereof, but again it's quite common place I'm afraid. If it paints a good picture it could be false and if it paints a bad picture it could be false, we may never know via the polls but I also use the statements and stories made by people that were there and are still there. I've got friends over there and the picture they paint is a bit different than the media paints dare I say 180 degrees different? Is bad stuff still going on? Yup, it is a war after all.

As to the attacks everything you've describe is very possible but again you're leaving out other things that are just as plausible e.g. these could be completely unrelated groups, Syrians in Iraqi pessant clothing, Iranians mascarading as Bathists, militant Afghani's or they could be exactly what Bush says they are. The fact is we don't know for sure and may never know. We do know the attacks are taking place and that we must quell the resistance to stabilize the area (as much as can be)

Here's a very broad brush stroke for you to think about:

"Screw Saddam. We're the enemy now."

When were we not the enemy? When have we not been an enemy to any country even those that are suppose to be our allies? People are our allies because without us they lose, their economies fold and their world collapses around them.

Take care,

DRC

w4rma

October 30, 2003, 06:15 PM

Two quotes from, IMHO, the last great Republican president:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.”
--Theodore Roosevelt

The severed foot
Yesterday's bombings left Iraqis scared, pissed off and just plain freaked out. They also left a grisly souvenir, which some giggling kids showed me in the tall grass.

Editor's note: This is the first of Jen Banbury's weekly dispatches from Iraq.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jen Banbury

Oct. 29, 2003 | BAGHDAD, Iraq -- I had been at the site of yesterday's Red Cross bombing for about an hour when a boy tugged at my sleeve and asked, in Arabic, whether I wanted to see a foot. He and two of his friends had been shadowing me and my translator, Amjad, for a little while. They listened curiously while I talked to a man named Farrag, who was working across the street from the ICRC building when the bomb exploded. As Farrag spoke, the bandages on his head and hands began to arch ever so slightly away from his sweat-slicked skin. Yesterday morning, Farrag was reading and waiting for some co-workers to arrive when the windows and door of the office burst furiously inward. He was cut and brought to the hospital, which was where he was able to see the extent of the carnage -- people badly wounded, people missing limbs, people dead.

I asked Farrag whether he felt afraid to return to work in that neighborhood. "Why would I be afraid?" he asked. "There's nothing here anymore to bomb."

I've been in Iraq six weeks now. During my first trip here, shortly after the war, I stayed for a month. I protested heavily against the war, but in its aftermath, I felt compelled to see what had happened to the country at eye level. It seemed to me (perhaps as a result of my novelist's sensibility) that the most interesting stories were emerging in the wake of what journalists like to call "the bang bang." I wanted to watch Iraq remake itself, and try to convey the way in which that process informs and is informed by everyday life here. When I left the country in June, I believed that, as bad as things were, they were slowly, steadily improving. But my return in September and, especially, the events of the last few days, have made clear that I was being overly optimistic. Most Iraqis I speak to convey an increasingly angry sense of bafflement. To anyone who lives in Baghdad, it's obvious that the situation (with minor, thoroughly trotted-out exceptions such as certain schools being rebuilt) continues to decline. President Bush's statement Monday -- that these bombings are somehow a testament to increasing success on the part of the U.S. presence here -- would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing. A day like yesterday should have made the signals clear enough for even President Bush to read: Iraq's not waving, it's drowning.

Yesterday's car bombing at the Red Cross killed up to 15 people and injured scores more. Soon after, suicide bombers destroyed three police stations. A fourth targeted station escaped harm when the bomber was shot by a police officer before he had time to self-detonate. By the end of the day, at least 34 people were dead, 200 wounded. All over Baghdad, Iraqis are feeling scared, confused, pissed off and just plain freaked out. Like the Bush administration, they have no clear idea who might be responsible. It's a speculation game. Saddam loyalists. Al-Qaida terrorists. Shiite extremists. Syrian infiltrators.

When I asked Dr. Jalal Massa, who heads up the small cardiac hospital next to the Red Cross building, if he had any hope that life in Iraq will improve, he said, "We don't know if it will get better. It's not a fact. It's an American presumption. We don't know what's in the minds of the politicians. We don't know what's in the minds of the bombers. We don't know anything."
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/29/baghdad_diary1/index.html

Sergeant Bob

October 30, 2003, 06:33 PM

I take what either side in the public debate of the situation in Iraq says with a grain of salt. They all have their own agendas and will tend to tilt the facts to support that agenda. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Anyone who publicly says things which embolden the terrorists or negatively affect our valient troops moral I consider traitors, no better than Jand Fonda.

We have some members here who are, or have been in Iraq. I will take what they say as truth much sooner than the spin propagated by the media.

bountyhunter

October 30, 2003, 06:46 PM

Where the hell were these bozos who are crying about military deaths when the military has been dying unavenged for the past 20 YEARS?!

Well, I haven't moved and I haven't changed my tune. I cursed Reagan for sending Marines to Beirut as a "peacekeeping" force in a land where there is no peace to keep and there never will be. I was furious when those 242 Marines died and still more furious when NOBODY was held accountable for the mind-blowing incompetence and lack of security that allowed the attack to take place.

That was my main gripe then and still is: you don't put walking targets in countries where the bad guys and good guys look alike and military hardware and terrorists can pour across the borders without detection. It's a recipe for a long prolonged slaughter of American lives.

bountyhunter

October 30, 2003, 06:52 PM

This is classic propaganda technique: skew everything to one side, so that the other side seems extreme."

After hearing the Bush administration consistently whining about how biased the media is... and how they are intentionally reporting selectively to make things look worse than they are, here is a fact confirmed about two days ago by a member of the Bush administration:

On average, US forces suffer about 40 attacks per day (obviously, not all are successful at killing our people).

The number of 40/day is up (and keeps steadily increasing) but attacks have been constant over the last several months.

Given that, do you think the reporting is biased? I certainly do.... I think they have been sugar coating it and not reporting how bad it really is.

greyhound

October 30, 2003, 07:03 PM

Lott suggested moving more troops from the relatively stable south closer to the region around Tikrit, where attacks on U.S. forces have been common.

Boy, that really chaps me. Maybe "General" Lott should leave the strategy and tactics to those who actually know something about it.

And, yes, President Bush has to call the final shots, but at least he has military advisors, unlike Trent Lott, who should feel lucky he still has a job.

bountyhunter

October 30, 2003, 07:06 PM

There are some here who still remember World War Two. During that war it was not unusual to take losses worldwide that measured in the hundreds and even thousands per day.

During that time we took our losses and mourned our dead and wounded without whimpering - or if we did we did so in private.

It was also a time when the news media - which at the time met newspapers, magazines and radio - supported the war effort, our president and out troops. We were, in all ways, one nation.

We continued through good and bad until the war was over and our enemies had unconditionally surrendered.

Unfortunately times have changed.

But those of us who still remember haven't..

I didn't live through WWII, but I sure as hell lived through Viet nam. I remember the nightly news putting up the weekly "kill ratios" of US servicemen to VC. I remember weeks when our losses were in the hundreds or more. I remember my mother aged a year for every week my brother was in country. I remember not sleeping the day the "lottery draft" numbers were going to be posted and I remember how grateful I was for getting 225 (they only darfted up to 175 that year).

This Iraq war smells a whole lot more like Viet nam than it does WWII. We did not go in to liberate a continent from an agressor who took countries that didn't belong to him. We went into a sovereign nation to assassinate it's leader because our president thought he was too dangerous to leave alive.

In WWII we were part of a world wide alliance. In Iraq, even our own NATO allies are keeping their distance. We stand alone, and we are finding out what a mistake it is to put ourselves in that corner.

I agree with you that times have changed, because I clearly remember Rossevelt going before congress to ask them to declare war on a country who had just sent half of our fleet to the bottom of the Pacific ocean. FDR, the man elected four times and feared as the most powerful leader of this country, knew and accepted the constitutional law that only the congress can take this country to war. What a contrast to the buffoon who publicly started announcing in his speeches that we must invade a sovereign nation against our own allies, against the UN, and without any kind of support... he simply believed he had the power and he took it.

I agree with you that times have changed... and I also agree with you that they have not changed for the better. I do not agree that the war in Iraq bears any resemblance to WWII. I certainly do not believe that those who opposed this train wreck were unpatriotic.

ReadyontheRight

October 31, 2003, 01:40 AM

We did not go in to liberate a continent from an agressor who took countries that didn't belong to him.

Isn't that exactly what we did? Hussein invaded Kuwait, we booted him out of Kuwait, he signed a treaty to keep his country and then he did not live up to the terms of the treaty.

DaveB

October 31, 2003, 11:31 AM

Isn't that exactly what we did? Hussein invaded Kuwait, we booted him out of Kuwait, he signed a treaty to keep his country and then he did not live up to the terms of the treaty.

Yes, we booted him out, and that was the right thing to do. It's also over and done with.

Now, a short list of facts.

Saddam was a bad man.

Saddam did bad things to his own people.

The administration did not go to congress and say "Saddam is a bad man who does bad things to his own people, so we need to invade his country and remove him from power."

The administration went to congress and told them that we needed to defend ourselves and our allies against Iraq.

Congress abrogated its constitutional responsibility (declaring war) so that the administration could act without a declaration.

The reasons and justifications given by the administration as to why Iraq was a threat to us have largely been unsubstantiated, even by our own military.

Moving right along...

It has been suggested that we went into Iraq to enforce various U.N. resolutions having to do with Iraq's disarmament.

Since when does the republican right give a damn about whether or not a middle eastern country is in violation of United Nations resolutions?

In any case, since when is it the U.S.'s role to be the U.N.'s enforcer, especially in cases when virtually the entire rest of the world will not play?

db

DRC

October 31, 2003, 11:32 AM

"After hearing the Bush administration consistently whining about how biased the media is... and how they are intentionally reporting selectively to make things look worse than they are, here is a fact confirmed about two days ago by a member of the Bush administration:"

Which member of the Bush administration confirmed this as fact and where can I find this information?

Thanks in advance,

DRC

cordex

October 31, 2003, 11:43 AM

The administration did not go to congress and say "Saddam is a bad man who does bad things to his own people, so we need to invade his country and remove him from power."
Agreed. Bush screwed up here. If he wanted the Iraq war, that is how he should have gone about it.
Since when does the republican right give a damn about whether or not a middle eastern country is in violation of United Nations resolutions?
Not so subtle implications.

Do you know the difference between a plain Jane UN resolution and a Security Council resolution?

DaveB

October 31, 2003, 11:48 AM

Sure.

The Security Council issues no (0) resolutions that are contrary to U.S. wishes.

We support the resolutions we like, and ignore those we don't like.

db

DaveB

October 31, 2003, 12:01 PM

After hearing the Bush administration consistently whining about how biased the media is...

OK, but incomplete answer.

The right has, since RR, cast every issue that reaches public consciousness as the result of a "liberal media". This has been a deliberate, and very successful strategy.

The fact is that, especially now, virtually all media is controlled by large corporations - that dictate reporting and the editorializing content.

The right has been successful in skewing the entire frame of reference: reporting that 20 years ago whould have been obviously biased to the right is now seen as neutral.

It follows that reporting that 20 years ago whould have been somewhat biased to the left, or even centrist, is now labeled Communist.

It's obvious at THR. My Lord, NPR is so afraid of being labeled liberal that there's nothing left of the left on it. People here dismiss out of hand anything printed by the Washington Post or the NY and LA Times, but they are completely beholden to the biggest money in the news industry.

You will read nothing, you will hear nothing, that presents actual left views anywhere in the national media.

The only stuff acknowleged to be 'hard right' involves people who are actually barking at the cameras.

db

ojibweindian

October 31, 2003, 12:15 PM

People here dismiss out of hand anything printed by the Washington Post or the NY and LA Times, but they are completely beholden to the biggest money in the news industry.

Could that be because they've been caught with their a$$es in their hands? How many "reputable" newspapers do you know of with reporting staffs that knowingly falsify information from sources, or outright make up sources?

The NY Times has done this, and the LA Times has sqaushed unflattering reports on Grey Davis while publishing dirt on Arnold. I suppose they're unbiased...

DaveB

October 31, 2003, 12:19 PM

Could that be because they've been caught with their a$$es in their hands? How many "reputable" newspapers do you know of with reporting staffs that knowingly falsify information from sources, or outright make up sources?

But I'm not now talking about falsifying information. That's easily exposed. I'm talking about the reporting of news with a systemic bias, and that that bias is the result of a deliberate strategy.

I don't live in CA, so I can't comment on squashing.

publishing dirt on Arnold

Is it your position that the fact that the Governor of the most populous state in the union has a history of sexual battery is something that should not be published?

db

cordex

October 31, 2003, 12:35 PM

The Security Council issues no (0) resolutions that are contrary to U.S. wishes.

We support the resolutions we like, and ignore those we don't like.
OK, but incomplete answer.
Security council resolutions are the only ones with teeth. General Council resolutions can be anything from establishing a "World Communications Year" once a decade to establishing an "Olympic Ideal". These resolutions are in essence meaningless except where they deal with funding or the employees of the UN itself. They generally say "recognizing this, we call upon this country or industry to do the following ....". These resolutions are rarely - if ever - enforced as law.
Referencing General Council resolutions as equivalent to Security Council resolutions is simply silly.
That we have veto power on the Security Council is irrelevant. France, Russia, UK, and China do as well.

ojibweindian

October 31, 2003, 12:43 PM

Is it your position that the fact that the Governor of the most populous state in the union has a history of sexual battery is something that should not be published?

Sure, if they'll publish the abusive behavior of Davis. They didn't.

Smells of bias to me.

DaveB

October 31, 2003, 12:46 PM

You are probably right; I can't say.

Even so, I don't think that it invalidates my argument. One situation does not a trend make.

db

ojibweindian

October 31, 2003, 12:49 PM

You are probably right; I can't say.

Even so, I don't think that it invalidates my argument. One situation does not a trend make.

I can say; I am right.

Drjones

October 31, 2003, 01:03 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it your position that the fact that the Governor of the most populous state in the union has a history of sexual battery is something that should not be published?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, if they'll publish the abusive behavior of Davis. They didn't.

Smells of bias to me.

Modern day "attack politics" are a communist tactic. If you attack a person's character, for example by bringing up past indiscretions, it is no longer sufficient for him to campaign on his platform and political issues: he must now defend his character and convince everyone that he is not a druggie/rapist/whatever.

I find it delightfully odd that, from what I've seen, most dirty campaigns are run by democrats. However, I don't think that's a coincidence as their ideals are communist in origin. What else should one expect?

And yes of course it is bias when the press screams about Arnold and what he may or may not have done (funny how these women wait 20+ years to say anything about it :scrutiny: ) yet remain completely silent about Gray's penchant for scathing temper tantrums and throwing things at his people.

ReadyontheRight

October 31, 2003, 01:04 PM

virtually all media is controlled by large corporations

Where do you get the idea that "large corporations" are right-wing or conservative?

Most corporations contribute $$$ to both sides to stay right in the middle.

DaveB

October 31, 2003, 01:08 PM

Most corporations contribute $$$ to both sides to stay right in the middle.

Two things:

I've posted here that I believe that we're in a 'have/have not' (more palatable here would be a 'people/corporations') conflict more than we're in a left/right conflict.

However, the contribution numbers I've seen represent a 60/40 or 70/30 split towards the right.

db

ReadyontheRight

October 31, 2003, 01:16 PM

Since you were speaking of large "right wing" corporations controlling media, here is a list of media controlled by AOL Time Warner.

I certainly would not classify Ted Turner and crew as "right wing":

Holdings of AOL Time Warner:

http://www.ketupa.net/time1.htm

This listing is indicative only.

Book Publishing

Time-Life International Books
Time-Life Education
Time-Life Music
Time-Life AudioBooks
Book-of-the-Month Club
Paperback Book Club
Children's Book-of-the-Month Club
History Book Club
Money Book Club
HomeStyle Books
Crafter's Choice
One Spirit
Little, Brown
Bulfinch Press
Back Bay Books
Warner Books
Warner Vision
The Mysterious Press
Warner Aspect
Warner Treasures
Oxmoor House
Leisure Arts
Sunset Books
TW Kids
Leisure Arts

Cable and Satellite

US operations include -
HBO Home Video
HBO Pictures/HBO Showcase
HBO Independent Productions
HBO Downtown Productions
HBO NYC Productions
HBO Animation
HBO Sports
Cinemax
Time Warner Sports

International-
HBO Asia
HBO en Espa–ol
HBO Ole (with Sony)
HBO Poland (with Sony)
HBO Brasil (with Sony)
HBO Hungary
Cinemax Selecciones

Other Operations-
HBO Direct (DBS)
Comedy Central (50% owned with Viacom)
CNN
CNN
CNN/SI
CNN International
CNN en Espanol
CNN Headline News
CNN Airport Network
CNN fn
CNN Radio
CNN Interactive
Court TV (with Liberty Media)
Time Warner Cable
Road Runner (high speed cable modem to the Internet, with MediaOne Group, Microsoft, and Compaq)
Time Warner Communications (telephone service)
New York City Cable Group (major cable network with around 1 million subscribers)
New York 1 News (24 hour news channel devoted only to NYC)
Time Warner Home Theater (Pay-Per-View)
Time Warner Security (residential and commercial security monitoring)
Kablevision (53.75% - cable television in Hungary)

Film & TV Production/Distribution -
Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. Studios
Warner Bros. Television (production)
The WB Television Network
Warner Bros. Television Animation
Hanna - Barbera Cartoons
Telepictures Production
Witt - Thomas Productions
Castle Rock Entertainment
Warner Home Video
Warner Bros. Domestic Pay - TV
Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution
Warner Bros. International Television Distribution
The Warner Channel (Latin America, Asia - Pacific, Australia, Germ.)
Warner Bros. International Theaters (owns/operates multiplex theaters in over 12 countries)

Magazines -
Time
Time Asia
Time Atlantic
Time Canada
Time Latin America
Time South Pacific
Time Money
Time For Kids
Fortune
Life
Sports Illustrate
Sports Illustrated Women/Sport
Sports Illustrated International
SI for Kids
Inside Stuff
Money
Your Company
Your Future
People
Who Weekly (Australian edition)
People en Espa–ol
Teen People
Entertainment Weekly
EW Metro
The Ticket
In Style
Southern Living
Progressive Farmer
Southern Accents
Cooking Light
Parenting
Baby Talk
Baby on the Way
This Old House
Sunset
Sunset Garden Guide
Health
Hippocrates
Coastal Living
Weight Watchers
Real Simple
President (Japan)
Dancyu (Japan)
Wallpaper (UK)

Over 100 titles under the IPC umbrella in the UK, including -
19
25 Beautiful Homes
Aeroplane
Amateur Gardening
Amateur Photographer
Angler's Mail
Bird Keeper
Cage & Aviary Birds
Cars & Car Conversions
Caravan
Chat
Classic Boat
Country Homes & Interiors
Country Life
Cycle Sport
Cycling Weekly
Decanter
essentials
Eventing
Family Circle
Farm Holiday Guides
Golf Monthly
The Guitar Magazine
Hair
Hi-Fi News
Homes & Gardens
Horse
Horse & Hound
Ideal Home
International Boat Industry
Land Rover World
Livingetc
Loaded
Marie Claire
MiniWorld
Mizz
Model Collector
Motor Boats Monthly
Motor Boat & Yachting
Motor Caravan Magazine
Mountain Bike Rider
Muzik
NME
Now
4x4
Park Home & Holiday Caravan
Practical Boat Owner
Practical Parenting
Prediction
Racecar Engineering
The Railway Magazine
Rugby World
Ships Monthly
Shoot Monthly
Shooting Times
Soaplife
Sporting Gun
Stamp Magazine
SuperBike
The Field
The Golf
TVTimes
TV & Satellite Week
Uncut
VolksWorld
Webuser
Wedding & home
What Digital Camera
What's on TV
Woman
Woman & Home
Woman's Own
Woman's Weekly
Women & Golf
World Soccer
Yachting Monthly
Yachting World
Yachting & Boating World

American Express Publishing Corporation (partial ownership/management) -
Travel & Leisure
Food & Wine
Your Company
Departures
SkyGuide

DC Comics -
Vertigo
Paradox
Milestone
Mad Magazine

Music Recording Labels -
The Atlantic Group
Atlantic Classics
Atlantic Jazz
Atlantic Nashville
Atlantic Theater
Big Beat
Blackground
Breaking
Curb
Igloo
Lava
Mesa/Bluemoon
Modern
1 43
Rhino Records
Elektra Entertainment Group
Elektra
EastWest
Asylum
Elektra/Sire
Warner Brothers Records
Warner Brothers
Warner Nashville
Warner Alliance
Warner Resound
Warner Sunset
Reprise
Reprise Nashville
American Recordings
Giant
Maverick
Revolution
Qwest
Warner Music International
WEA Telegram
East West ZTT
Coalition
CGD East West
China
Continential
DRO East West
Erato
Fazer
Finlandia
Magneoton
MCM
Nonesuch
Teldec

Other Recording Interests and Joint Ventures -
Warner/Chappell Music (publishing company)
WEA Inc. (sales, distribution and manufacturing)
Ivy Hill Corporation (printing and packaging)
Warner Special Products
Columbia House (minor stake with Sony - direct marketing)
Music Sound Exchange (with Sony - direct marketing)
Music Choice and Music Choice Europe (with Sony, EMI and General Instrument)
Viva (with Sony, Vivendi and EMI) - German music video channel
Channel V (with Sony, EMI, Bertelsmann and News)
Heartland Music (50% - direct order of country and gospel music)

Online/Other Publishing -
AOL
Road Runner (with Microsoft)
Warner Publisher Services
Time Distribution Services
American Family Publishers (50%)
Pathfinder
Africana.com

Retail & Parks -
Warner Bros. Consumer Products
Warner Bros. Studio Stores (250 stores worldwide in over 30 countries)
Warner Brothers Recreation Enterprises - owns/operates international theme parks (Australian parks are in partnership with Village Roadshow)
Turner Entertainment
Entertainment Networks
TBS Superstation
Turner Network Television (TNT)
Turner South
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies
Cartoon Network in Europe
Cartoon Network in Latin America
TNT & Cartoon Network in Asia/Pacific

Film Production
New Line Cinema
Fine Line Features
Turner Original Productions

Sports
Atlanta Braves
Atlanta Hawks
Atlanta Thrashers
Turner Sports
World Championship Wrestling
Good Will Games
Philips Arena

Other Operations
Turner Learning
CNN Newsroom (daily news program for classrooms)
Turner Adventure Learning (electronic field trips for schools)
Turner Home Satellite
Turner Network Sales

ReadyontheRight

October 31, 2003, 01:25 PM

In any case, since when is it the U.S.'s role to be the U.N.'s enforcer, especially in cases when virtually the entire rest of the world will not play?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm

More countries supported the 2003 liberation of Iraq than supported the 1991 liberation of Kuwait.

While it's true that fewer countries contributed military forces in 2003, it's also true that no US soldiers reported to commanders from a foreign military -- as many on the left would have us do under UN command.

bountyhunter

October 31, 2003, 01:27 PM

The right has been successful in skewing the entire frame of reference: reporting that 20 years ago whould have been obviously biased to the right is now seen as neutral.

True, but the Iraq war raised a new spectre in "NEWS" that is ugly and not just a little frightening:

The Bush administration said that reproters would be "embedded" into combat units so they would get the first hand news. What's wrong with this?

It was a clear attempt to write the news. First off, if you know exactly where the reporters are, you control exactly what they see. But worse, it was telegraphed early on that these embedded positions would be offered only to news organizations that were "neutral". Which, as pointed out, means heavily biased in favor of showing the war as being a good thing.

Bush knew that today news is a huge money business, and no network would risk being left out of the loop. So, we mostly got the "US version" of the story. We got no data on the numbers of Iraqi's killed and we got
false data on the numbers of civilians killed.

People here dismiss out of hand anything printed by the Washington Post or the NY and LA Times, but they are completely beholden to the biggest money in the news industry.

It is strange how people attacked and dismissed a steady stream of information (proven to be true) from both the Post and Time magazine. On sept 16, Time featured an article detailing how the Saudi's have financed Al Qaeda for over a decade and who actually is responsible for 9/11 murders (Saddam Hussein was not involved). Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney have all made public statements acknowledging that there is no credible link between Iraq and Al Qaeda... but it is still believed by most people because they told that lie so many times it has become incorporated into the landscape. The Time article was rejected as liberal propoganda by many. The Post broke the story about a white house official blowing a CIA agents cover as retaliation. At first, it was called a lie and politics as usual. Now we know it's true. Post printed details from Ambassador Wilson about how he personally supplied findings to the white house that Iraq did NOT attempt to buy uranium from Niger which were ignored. The list goes on.... bottom line, they may be breaking stories that show the administration was lying, but the stories have been proven true.

DaveB

October 31, 2003, 01:37 PM

More countries supported the 2003 liberation of Iraq than supported the 1991 liberation of Kuwait.

What do you mean when you say 'support'? With $$$? With troops? Logistical support?

Or with blahblah?

While it's true that fewer countries contributed military forces in 2003, it's also true that no US soldiers reported to commanders from a foreign military -- as many on the left would have us do under UN command.

Beside the point. Anyhoo, most 'on the left' really have no opinion as to whether US troops should be put under UN command. They simply don't care. They would prefer the UN be involved, because that would indicate that the US is not acting alone, never mind against the wishes of other countries. Who reports to whom, while important symbolically to many, is a side issue to others.

db

cordex

October 31, 2003, 02:59 PM

However, the contribution numbers I've seen represent a 60/40 or 70/30 split towards the right.
Contribution numbers?

Any chance you could share these?
The Bush administration said that reproters would be "embedded" into combat units so they would get the first hand news. What's wrong with this?

It was a clear attempt to write the news. First off, if you know exactly where the reporters are, you control exactly what they see. But worse, it was telegraphed early on that these embedded positions would be offered only to news organizations that were "neutral". Which, as pointed out, means heavily biased in favor of showing the war as being a good thing.
So what would you prefer? Giving reporters trucks, painting them bright orange and promising not to shoot at them? Or perhaps allow reporters from Jihad Weekly tag along with our troops?

Facinating. Reporters got to follow troops and report events in real time (something that has never been allowed or possible before) and people still complain. Will coverage of any war ever be perfect? Not a chance. Not even for the commanders - much less you and me.
We got no data on the numbers of Iraqi's killed and we got
false data on the numbers of civilians killed.
Go complain to Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. It was his job to tell you how many Iraqi soldiers were killed.

ReadyontheRight

October 31, 2003, 03:06 PM

most 'on the left' really have no opinion as to whether US troops should be put under UN command.

Well, the US troops sure have an opinion.

When the UN IS involved, where do most of the UN's money, troops, military technology and logistical support come from? Or, more to the point, which country's troops do most of the dying?

Here are some example numbers from the 1991 Persian Gulf War (liberating Kuwait, a country of 7000 square miles vs. Iraq, a country of 170,000 square miles):

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

"...The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:

U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle
Navy: 6 battle; 8 nonbattle
Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle
Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle
Women killed: 15

U.S. wounded in action: 467

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

British wounded in action: 10

French casualties: 2

French wounded in action: 25 (estimated)

Allied Arab casualties: 39

Allied combat air sorties flown: More than 116,000

Coalition aircraft losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)

Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)..."

Most of the $53 spent on the 1991 Persian Gulf War was paid by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I guess many of the UN's member's support for anything could be construed as "blahblah", except for supporting the re-distribution of wealth and resources from the US to the rest of the world.

UN involvement waters down the mission and leads to more American deaths.

greyhound

October 31, 2003, 06:41 PM

Bush screwed up here. If he wanted the Iraq war, that is how he should have gone about it.

I've actually given this a lot of thought, as this was the one reason that no one could have diagreed with (yes I know the world agreed he had WMD, but I always thought it was risky - the fact that the UN inspectors couldn't find any nagged at me).

The only thing I can come up with, is that though the US is full of nice people, if liberating Iraq was the only/main reason to go, it wouldn't be supported.

Like I said, we're good people, but there's a big isolationist streak in our national character. Spilling blood for some distant oppressed just wouldn't fly.

On the other hand, make it seem like we are/could be in danger, and look out - the sleeping tiger awakes.

I'm sure there's lots of holes in this, its kinda off the cuff....

cordex

October 31, 2003, 09:02 PM

greyhound,
I agree.
If Bush had simply asked for a war to free an oppressed people, he might not have been able to convince as many people to go along.

The why of it isn't at question. Just whether or not it was moral to deceive (assuming it was deceit and not an honest mistake) to get permission to figh the war.

Khornet

November 1, 2003, 01:13 PM

I finally got the Inspector Clouseau reference! Pink Panther movies are a cult film in my house. Do you have a rheum? A RHEUM, you idiot!

I think I can see how the article shows bias, albeit not of the raging BBC type. Though sad, the death of one more GI really makes the day no different than any other in Iraq these days. So the author spices (sexes?) it up by an irrelevant benchmark, namely the casualties incurred during the invasion. And paragraph 5 isn't reporitng, it's editorializing.

I must also point out that the Bush admin. has not been criticizing the media for bias, although the right has done.

A good question would be: Do the news folk have open access to the good new in Iraq, equal to their access to the bad? If they do, then their reporting is certainly biased. They've already decided it's a quagmire, and they're there to report on the quagmire they're certain exists. Having already concluded that there will be said quagmire, they will report every event as a sign of its development. In this way, they (and those of the public who already decided it was a quagmire before anyone could have known yet) will see each event as confirmation of their presuppositions and will honestly think they're not biased.

That is, the media are so incapable of honest self-appraisal that it can never occur to them that they are biased. They know better than us, see?

For a media person to percieve the institutional liberal bias of their trade would be like a fish feeling wet.

MicroBalrog

November 1, 2003, 01:51 PM

The fires in California are in direct link to Environmentalists waging war on the logging industry and not allowing them to thin out the forest areas so this kind of thing wouldn't happen and could be contained.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/10/30_logging.html

fallingblock

November 2, 2003, 02:14 AM

finds an acorn now and again:

"It is strange how people attacked and dismissed a steady stream of information (proven to be true) from both the Post and Time magazine."

Since "The Post" and "Time" are two of the most ideologically-blinded
leftist rags currently wasting paper, it's to be expected from simple probability that once in a great while some of what they report in some small way may resemble reality....:D

Especially if it supports their leftist bias;)

Khornet

November 2, 2003, 06:58 AM

"The eye, self-satisfied, will be misled,
Thinking the puzzle solved, supposing at last
It can look forth and comprehend the world."

Anthony Hecht, "The Transparent Man"

DRC

November 3, 2003, 12:37 PM

Hello Micro,

"I suggest you read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.co...30_logging.html"

Since we all know that the democratic underground is a bastion of unskewed, unbiased factual information and allows all kinds of diverse thought on their board (I too was a member until I asked some valid questions about a subject and was promptly banned) I should have gone there first ;)

Please forgive me for throwing logic in where none is necessary or ever used (i.e. democratic underground) but I'm going to put some in for the thinking man to garner valuable lessons from.

First, when a fire starts what is the first thing the fire departments do? They do what they have to in order to contain it which makes it easier to control. In a forest fire situation what's the first thing they do? Clear the approaching areas to make a fire break maybe? Why would they do that? Because it works. Now if one makes sure that the amount of fuel being burned is at a manageable level before these things happen then what nature does on it's own can be controled, deaths can be limited or eliminated and potential damage can be managed as well. Why is that so diffuclt to understand? But then it would appear that there are plenty of people that can't understand what the democratic underground really is so I've answered my own question.

I see the dates on the California pictures as 1999. My questions are 1) When did this logging actually occur? Even though it's from such a great distance (and probably done that way to make it look worse than it is) it would appear that there is a lot of growth on the ground and even trees. 2) What's the total area of these cleared sections? 3) When did the environmentalists get their agendas passed to stop the logging industry? and 4) Why are only certain areas clear cut? Looks like the spokes of a wheel. Was there reasoning on the logging industry's part for the way this was done???

Before we get started on the who's right and who's wrong scenario; Yes, I read the whole article you linked to. If you wish I will dissect it piece by piece for you complete with links and information and data to support all of my debunking. I'm assuming that you've not heard about the bills that have been passed in California that were prompted by these fires and had been held up by the environmentalist groups for some time now? The big concern? Excessive undergrowth and tree growth in range and forested areas. I will try to find an article that I read sometime back which addresses the forest fire problem and undergrowth directly, but I will forewarn you that it is the exact opposite of what the deomocratic underground espouses in your article and gets down to the nuts and bolts of forestry and wild fires. You won't like it ;)

Here's a couple to chew on for a little while though:

http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infonews/release/1998/024%20Forest%20fires%20studied%20by%20UW%20ecologist,%20February%2010,%201998.html

Pay special attention to the 6th paragraph in this article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/fightingfires/

Take care and I'll get back to you with the other article when I find it.

DRC

w4rma

November 3, 2003, 10:11 PM

Time to take the Dover test

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- At Harvard on January 19, 2000, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton provided a valuable standard, both to determine whether the United States ought to send the nation's warriors into combat and to enlist "the support of the American people as well as the Congress" needed to sustain that involvement. In Shelton's judgment, such a grave decision :

"(M)ust be subjected to what I call the 'Dover test.' Is the American public prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware -- which is a point entry for our Armed Forces?

This is an issue, I think, that should be raised early on. It should be discussed, and it should be decided by our political leadership before any operation begins."

In the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration chose instead to duck Shelton's "Dover test." The scene so familiar to older Americans -- of the military honor guard in white gloves, respectfully accompanying from the aircraft to the waiting loved ones the remains of the fallen warrior in the coffin covered by Old Glory, often with a military band offering an appropriately solemn piece -- was simply banned. George W. Bush's war against Iraq could not flunk the Dover test because there would be no Dover test.
…
After 241 U.S. servicemen, mostly Marines, were killed in a terrorist attack on their Beirut barracks, Reagan went to Camp Lejeune not simply to console the grieving, though console them he did, but to do what President Bill Clinton would later do so memorably after the deadly attack on the USS Cole and the murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Nairobi -- to give voice to the national sense of grief and offer meaning to the ultimate sacrifices made.

Where is the outrage on the part of the press? Are we lapdogs? The administration in full spin control insists that the reality on the ground in Iraq is much more positive than the press reports. Yet the administration denies reality at home -- the reality of the recent heroism of this nation's fallen sons and daughters.

By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.

The time is long past in 2003 to take the Dover test.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/column.shields.opinion.dover/

fallingblock

November 4, 2003, 01:05 AM

Say something, w4rma....are you there?

w4rma

November 4, 2003, 01:30 AM

…
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- At Harvard on January 19, 2000, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton provided a valuable standard, both to determine whether the United States ought to send the nation's warriors into combat and to enlist "the support of the American people as well as the Congress" needed to sustain that involvement. In Shelton's judgment, such a grave decision :

"(M)ust be subjected to what I call the 'Dover test.' Is the American public prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware -- which is a point entry for our Armed Forces?
…
By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.
…

Bush's policy of, IMHO, disrespect towards our war dead appalls me. In addition to his hiding the caskets transported home, he has not attended one single solitary funeral of any soldier who died in Iraq. I don't think he's attended a single funeral of any soldier who has died in Afghanistan, either.

LawDog

November 4, 2003, 03:50 AM

Hmm. How did we do on the "Dover Test" in World War 2?

Now, my memory gets a little scattered once in a while, so would one of you history types tell me what the official White House policy on journalists showing KIAs in newspapers or film reels during WWII?

By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you telling me that we're not having any military funerals at Arlington for Iraqi war dead? Are you telling me that the 3rd INF isn't escorting Army fallen to their resting place at Arlington?

This is outrageous. Let me bang off an e-mail to a buddy of mine with the 3rd INF demanding to know why the Old Guard has ceased their duties with respect to Army burials at Arlington.

We'll by God get to the bottom of this.

LawDog

Obiwan

November 5, 2003, 03:40 PM

My prayers are with every soldier who has died...and their families as well.

But....

Something over 1,000 soldiers die every year simply from accidents

More people have been killed in Washington DC than Iraq...I didn't say Americans because with D.C. who knows????

Over 100 people a day die in car accidents in this country....

So what is the point.....?

It may actually be safer to be in a war zone....

That's what it is.

Call it what it is and it will not be so "shocking":uhoh:

President Bush did not say the fighting was over...merely the organized combat against Iraqui Govt. forces.

I firmly believe that the best way to end the conflict over there is for all of us to get behind the effort.

Showing weakness only emboldens our enemies.

Think what you want...but wave the flag

We are in this...so grow up and support our troops..

Suck it up if you have to...it's not about your opinion!

Yowza

November 5, 2003, 04:44 PM

I'm not sure if this is the poll that the administration was "lying" about, but it seems pretty positive for the most part. Check it out...

http://www.taemag.com/docLib/20030905_IraqpollFrequencies.pdf

Malone LaVeigh

November 5, 2003, 05:02 PM

I firmly believe that the best way to end the conflict over there is for all of us to get behind the effort.That's not the same as supporting the liars who got us into the effort under false pretences. It also doesn't preclude us from holding them accountable for not having a plan for getting the job done and getting out.

Obiwan

November 5, 2003, 05:07 PM

Thank You for your Support:rolleyes:

Perhaps you could submit your master plan to the Joint Chiefs for approval.

If it will somehow acheive the same objectives in less time with less casualties I am certain they will implement it immediately.

Nobody said this was gonna be easy or quick...nobody except the media!

Sean Smith

November 5, 2003, 05:15 PM

My Lord, NPR is so afraid of being labeled liberal that there's nothing left of the left on it.

That statement right there is pure comedy. Unless nothing short of a Maoist counts as a "reactionary" in your book, that is. :D

w4rma

November 5, 2003, 05:18 PM

Nobody said this was gonna be easy or quick...nobody except the media!Cakewalk In Iraq
By Ken Adelman
Wednesday, February 13, 2002; Page A27
…
I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.
…
The writer was assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977, and arms control director under President Ronald Reagan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12

Yowza

November 5, 2003, 05:25 PM

I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk

Haven't we done both of these things? Weren't they a cakewalk? Saddam no longer has a military and Iraq is liberated.

Rick

Malone LaVeigh

November 5, 2003, 05:27 PM

Thank You for your Support

Perhaps you could submit your master plan to the Joint Chiefs for approval.Some times support comes in the form of telling the hard truth. Sorry if you can't take it.

To clarify: My criticism is all aimed at the civilian political figures that got us into this mess. I believe they have painted us into a corner, and now we need to finish the job. Having Saddam return would be intolerable. But I also believe they have created the very conditions that might allow Saddam to have the last laugh.

As far as my "master plan" is concerned, it couldn't have been worse than the one employed.

Malone LaVeigh

November 5, 2003, 05:33 PM

Saddam no longer has a military and Iraq is liberated.There was just that little part about after the military victory that they missed. Iraq is not "liberated." No one except for the most pie-eyed propagandists believe that. It might end up liberated, but for now, it is occupied. Only the presence of thousands of US troops keeps it from disintegrating into a internecine bloodbath. You can't call that liberated.

w4rma

November 5, 2003, 05:37 PM

Haven't we done both of these things? Weren't they a cakewalk? Saddam no longer has a military and Iraq is liberated.http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/11/03/national/03lett.xl.jpg
Two Words on a Banner That No Author Wants to Claim
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/national/03LETT.html

http://armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102803signs2.jpg
Whose banner is it, anyway?
http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2346349.php

Bush Errs on 'Mission Accomplished' Query
Bush Disavows 'Mission Accomplished' Banner on Ship, but White House Admits Having Sign Made
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031028_2017.html

Yowza

November 5, 2003, 05:44 PM

There was just that little part about after the military victory that they missed.

True, but I was merely addressing the previous quote. The rebuilding of Iraq is indeed a much more difficult proposition, but I don't know why anyone would have believed that it wouldn't be. As far as Iraq being occupied, that is also technically true, but is it occupied by aggressors or liberators?

Rick

DRC

November 5, 2003, 07:04 PM

Did you forget about the war on terror or am I in error on that? The mission of the major conflict was accomplished, we ousted Saddam and his regime and it was a "cake walk." To disband the regime was never considered or assumed to be a difficult task by the administration only by the liberals (does the word "quagmire" ring any bells?) The time frame for the war was the exact opposite, and no Donald Rumsfeld did not say this war was only going to take a short period of time he saidthe major conflict would be a cake walk and taking control of the region would not take long that in itself does not mean the war is over. Try again.

"As far as my "master plan" is concerned, it couldn't have been worse than the one employed."

Ah yes. The act of doing nothing accomplishes..............nothing. :)

Take care,

DRC

fallingblock

November 5, 2003, 07:14 PM

to those who are using the Iraq situation for political gain.

"Nothing" is the absence of action.

"Nothing" is the gain from pointless criticism of those doing the tasks which need to be done.

Malone's master plan slots in there neatly.:D

zahc

November 5, 2003, 07:29 PM

I thought the free press, with its mantra of, "The people's right to know" had an ethical obligation to present the facts, all of them.

I have never suffered under such an illusion. I understand that the free press has an obligation only to make money.

Malone LaVeigh

November 5, 2003, 07:42 PM

Did you forget about the war on terror or am I in error on that? the tasks which need to be done.That's the crux. If you still, in the face of all the evidence, believe the war had anything to do with terrorism or for whatever reason "needed to be done" there is no amount of reason that will persuade.

When did they find those WMDs and al Qaeda cells again?

DaveB

November 6, 2003, 10:42 AM

When did they find those WMDs and al Qaeda cells again?

They were under the rose bush in that guy's back yard... No. Wrong smoking gun.

That was the nookular program.

db

cordex

November 6, 2003, 10:49 AM

Obiwan

November 6, 2003, 11:23 AM

Malone

Sorry I don't subscribe to your truth

Other Naysayers....

Show me where Rumsfeld said we will go in, kick butt, and leave...

Times up!

The part he said would be quick was unbelievably quick and losses were less than we could ever hope for.

But Bush said from day one...the war on terror will take years.

one of the reasons it is taking a while is that we bailed last time and left a bunch of good people hanging. Our plant was never about doing that again.

Please ignore the reports from the rest of Iraq that show things pretty peaceful and focus instead on the areas where we are taking fire.

That will bolster "your truth":scrutiny:

I'm sorry...but I can't help feeling some of you would have bailed after Normandy....after all ...the Germans didn't attack the US...and all those soldiers killed...where was that in the plan.....nobody told us!!!

greyhound

November 6, 2003, 06:58 PM

Couple thoughts on this long thread.

- Most Americans remember Gulf War I. Despite dire predictions from the leftists screaming "Vietnam", the goal (right or wrong) was accomplished: we came, we kicked butt, and we came home right away. So, this is what Americans expect from war: you kick butt, you come home. (Stuff like Kosovo didn't really register with average Americans since the ground troops weren't involved).

-During the run up to Gulf War II, the President and others referred to a long road ahead in turning Iraq into a viable country (yes a few pundits called for a "cakewalk", but so did a few left pundits call for " thousands of US troops dead" or some such nonsense.)

-Now this is where Bush screwed up: the American public equates war with kicking butt and coming home. But that fool, in order to kick off his re-election campaign, goes on that carrier and declares "the end of major combat". To the average American, when the President says "major combat" is over, troops stop dying, a la Gulf I. But in the occupation, troops are still dying, the public gets restless, and the media who have been against the war from the start, and indeed started with the "quagmire" nonsense after 1 week, go ape attacking the President, which only causes the public to get more restless.

Whatever fool advised him to go on the carrier and give that speech ought to be fired. The only thing he should have done at that point is warn the public that though things are going well, we still face tough times ahead. And yes, I'm sure he said that in the speech but that was NOT how the public perceived it or how it was spun. Mission NOT accomplished until Iraq is a viable (semi) democracy. At least one scenario should have predicted whats going on there now with the "resistance" and indeed since Osama & Co have been calling on Muslims to "fight the Americans and Zionists whereever you find them" since 1996 the presence of foreign "jihadis" should be no surprise.

Why have we not not learned since the Korean War that you can't mix politics and war? Either you wage total war, or look for other means to achieve goals. Every time we try these "little wars" it comes back too bite us somehow.

w4rma

November 8, 2003, 11:55 AM

To Dean, a Bush image is fodder

NASHUA -- Presidential contender Howard Dean plans to air television commercials showing footage of President Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln -- images Bush deployed as a triumphant visual coda to the Iraq conflict but which Dean says are now powerful reminders of a war gone wrong.

With mounting casualties and unrest in Iraq, the images, which include a backdrop banner reading "Mission Accomplished," are increasingly viewed by Bush's political opponents as a liability. Dean is the first Democrat to commit to using them in his ads.

"We're going to put up the aircraft carrier ad and show what his real defense is," Dean said in an interview on Thursday. "We're going to use this footage of him landing on the aircraft carrier . . . to show that he's all talk and no action. And the action he's got us into has cost us 400 lives and thousands of wounded people who will never get their limbs back."

The former governor of Vermont and Democratic front-runner has been among the most outspoken of the candidates in his opposition to the war, lambasting his congressional rivals for voting for the war resolution and railing against Bush's decision to enter the conflict.
…
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2003/11/08/to_dean_a_bush_image_is_fodder/

Sergeant Bob

November 8, 2003, 12:26 PM

w4rma, nothing personal but, watching you in these debates is like watching "Crossfire" with Bob Novak's opponent holding up pages of the New York Times as his counterpoints.:confused:

It's like watching a Saturday Night Live skit.:D

w4rma

November 8, 2003, 12:41 PM

It is a complement to be compared to Carville or Begala. Thank you, Sergeant Bob. :cool:

Begala and Carville: Dean on K Street
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001441.html

I try extremely hard to debate with a strong foundation on facts. That is why my posts are source and quote heavy.

Drjones

November 8, 2003, 01:26 PM

If you still, in the face of all the evidence, believe the war had anything to do with terrorism or for whatever reason "needed to be done" there is no amount of reason that will persuade.

For once we agree, malone! :)

Saddam was, contrary to popular belief, a very nice man who:

a) Never, ever, ever supported any terrorist organization in any way, shape, or form. In fact, his regime (maybe we shouldn't use that word since he was such a kind, generous, democratically elected leader) had a policy similar to the US of not negotiating with terrorists.

b) Never killed so much as a fly. In fact, the one time he did accidentally kill a fly, he ordered all the iraqi flags to be flown at half-staff for a week, had a massive funeral procession for the fly, and cried himself silly all because saddam is such a nice, sweet man.

c) He cared so deeply about controlling government spending that the reason he would make the families of the people he just executed pay for the bullet used to kill them was so as to not place even the tiniest strain on the average iraqi taxpayer. After all, why should Mohammed Al-Akbar (NOT an al-quaeda member that saddam is supporting, BTW) pay for bullets used to kill someone who dared question saddam? That just isn't fair!

Oops! Did I just say that? I'm sorry, saddam never really killed anyone. I guess I've been listening too much to the govt.-controlled media/military propaganda machine like NPR and dan rather and my brain slipped and I typed that.

Oh, and saddam really, really loved America too. He cried every single time an American died in a car accident, on 9/11, or from eating too much McDonalds.

Regards,
Drjones
:)

w4rma

November 8, 2003, 01:41 PM

This link between Islamist zealot and secular fascist just doesn't add up
…
Moreover, an al-Qaida-Saddam alliance defies common sense. Osama bin Laden is an Islamist zealot who despises secular fascists such as Saddam. I heard from Bin Laden himself that he is no fan of Saddam. When I met with the Saudi exile in Afghanistan five years ago he volunteered that he thought the Iraqi dictator was a “bad Muslim”. For Bin Laden, that's as bad as it gets.
…
This leader is identified as Abu Musab Zarqawi, who, curiously, is so important that he does not appear on the FBI's list of the 22 most wanted terrorists. Indeed, key US investigators tell me that Mr Zarqawi is not a significant player in al-Qaida. In fairness, European intelligence officials do believe that Mr Zarqawi may have played an important role in al-Qaida operations in Europe.

If al-Qaida's connection with Iraq is far from proven, its links with Saudi Arabia are real. This is not to suggest that the Saudi government, which is also a target of al-Qaida, has actively supported the group. However, Saudi citizens have provided financial and logistical support to al-Qaida and the Saudi government has been unwilling or unable to stop them.

Despite the fact that most of the September 11 hijackers were Saudi, the government is barely cooperating with the US investigation into the attacks. The printable words US investigators use to describe the Saudi attitude towards their inquiries are “obstructionist”, “useless” and “despicable”.
…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,885139,00.html

DUBAI - A taped message believed to be from fugitive militant Osama bin Laden on Tuesday warned Arab nations against supporting a war against Iraq as threatened by the United States -- but branded Saddam Hussein an infidel.
…
But the statement did not express support for Saddam. It said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government.

Concern that the United States has not made a valid case for war against Iraq has already divided the NATO Western alliance, with France, Germany and Belgium refusing to back preparations to assist fellow-member Turkey in the event of war.

A NATO official in Brussels said after two days of deadlock that efforts to break the impasse in the alliance would continue through the night, with a meeting of its North Atlantic Council set for 3:45 a.m. EST on Wednesday.

While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, the tape said Saddam's secular “socialist” government had lost credibility.

“Socialists are infidels wherever they are,” the statement said. But it added: “It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

FBI website: The 19 suspected hijackers (Note 8 of them are listed as “Possible Saudi national” and Iraq or Iraqi is not found anywhere on the page)
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Ghost of al-Qaeda left out of story

Links between Saddam and the terrorist group were cited among reasons to prosecute a war. Jason Burke finds little to support the claims
…
A report published last week by a US congressional committee makes hard reading for them and for all those who, like Blair, appear to have sucked in their propaganda. Not for what it includes, but for what it omits. The report runs to nearly 900 pages and is as comprehensive an account of the unfurling of the plot to attack the Twin Towers as is likely to be published in the near future. But, even in the 28-page special section that is being kept secret, it does not mention Iraq. The foreign nation singled out for criticism is Saudi Arabia.
…
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1006663,00.html

White House 'delayed 9-11 report'

WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

“The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war,” said Cleland. “There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.”

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

“The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out,” he said.

“Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration.”
…
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

Drjones

November 8, 2003, 01:56 PM

BTW, Al Quaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world.

Frightening how many people don't understand that. :uhoh:

w4rma

November 8, 2003, 02:06 PM

IMHO, considering Bush and the Republican leadership has failed in finding Osama bin Forgotten and shutting down, containing or even preventing the expantion of Al Queda, changing the topic from Al Queda and Osama bin Forgotten is about the only recourse you have in defending him, Drjones.

Drjones

November 8, 2003, 02:08 PM

IMHO, considering Bush and the Republican leadership has failed in finding Osama bin Forgotten and shutting down, containing or even preventing the expantion of Al Queda, that's about the only recourse you have in defending him, Drjones.

You're right. We have failed.

That's why we have had, um, how many terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

Sorry, I have a bad memory.

w4rma

November 8, 2003, 02:21 PM

A) There weren't any successful Al Queda terrorist attacks on American soil during the 8 years of Democrats, Clinton and Gore.

B) In addition to chosing to attack a nation that had no links to terrorist attacks on America, Bush also failed in protecting America on 9.11.01 when about 2,500 Americans were killed in the WTC buildings.

C) Over 400 Americans have died in Iraq. Over 2,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq, many of whom have lost limbs and have been otherwise permanently maimed.

D) If Bush were really interested in winning a war on terrorism he would be paying attention to his occupation of the capital city in Afghanistan. I say, "the capital city", because that's the only place in Afghanistan where the Taliban and the warlords don't control, currently.

fallingblock

November 9, 2003, 12:31 AM

There weren't any successful Al Queda terrorist attacks on American soil during the 8 years of Democrats, Clinton and Gore.
************************************************************

That was the terrorist enabling phase...let 'em test their strength, heave a few cruise missiles, share a cigar with Monica, swap some technology with the Chinese for campaign contributions.....

************************************************************
B) In addition to chosing to attack a nation that had no links to terrorist attacks on America, Bush also failed in protecting America on 9.11.01 when about 2,500 Americans were killed in the WTC buildings.
************************************************************

Saddam lurved terrorists who attacked America, and Israel. The man took every effort to assist and fund any enemies of the U.S..
Do you actually think Gore would have had a clue, given the Democ-rats handling of terrorism incidents in their eight years in office?

************************************************************
C) Over 400 Americans have died in Iraq. Over 2,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq, many of whom have lost limbs and have been otherwise permanently maimed.
************************************************************

An outstanding success! We've deposed a brutal anti-American regime, defeated its military and kept non-combatant deaths to a minimum. Now the Iraq people have their first chance at freedom in nearly three decades, and all for less than the combat deaths suffered in an average week in the Korean war! War does have casualties....the point is to achieve your objective and do it with as few casualties to your side as possible.

************************************************************
D) If Bush were really interested in winning a war on terrorism he would be paying attention to his occupation of the capital city in Afghanistan. I say, "the capital city", because that's the only place in Afghanistan where the Taliban and the warlords don't control, currently.
************************************************************

Another exaggeration of scale....Afghanistan is no longer available for the Taliban as a base, and Kabul is the center of political development there.
A huge improvement on the situation during the Democ-rats tenure in office.

fallingblock

November 9, 2003, 08:10 PM

"I try extremely hard to debate with a strong foundation on facts. That is why my posts are source and quote heavy."
************************************************************

What you are posting are ARTICLES....most often from sources which agree with the political left almost exclusively.

"Websters New Collegiate Dictionary":

article 1 a: a distinct often numbered section of a writing
b: a separate clause.
c: a stipulation in a document (as a contract or creed)
d: a nonfictional prose composition usu. forming an independent
part of a publication (as a magazine)

fact: 1: a thing done: as a:crime{accessory after the~}
b obs: feat
c archaic: action
2 archaic: performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual: {a question of ~ brings on actual
evidence}
4 a: something that has actual existence {space travel is now a~}
b: an actual occurence: event {the~of his evidence is proven by
witnesses}
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

You are presenting ARTICLES (definition 1d), which may or may not be factual in the sense of definitions 3 or 5, or even definition 4b, especially considering your sources:D

Obiwan

November 10, 2003, 10:55 AM

Falling Block is right on....

Sorry, but your original message re: Biden And Lugar thinking GWB was doing a bad job meant squat.....

Those two wouldn't have a kind word for the President if their lives depended on it.

ojibweindian

November 10, 2003, 11:14 AM

A) There weren't any successful Al Queda terrorist attacks on American soil during the 8 years of Democrats, Clinton and Gore.

USS Cole was pretty successful.

First WTC bombing in 1993 was successful, though it did not bring down the towers.

Embassy bombings in Africa were pretty successful.

And guess what, they're all considered American soil.

w4rma

November 10, 2003, 02:35 PM

On sources. IMHO, folks need to be careful about discounting all "news" sources except those that are owned by either Rev. Moon (Washington Times, UPI, Newsmax) or Rupert Murdoch (NY Post, FOX News, The Weekly Standard). Discounting other sources means that *they* decide what "news" you get…and don't get.

Moon Shadow
With Help From Congressional Republicans And The Bush 'Faith-Based' Initiative, Controversial Korean Evangelist Sun Myung Moon Is Trying To Expand His Religious-Political Empire
…
Reading further, they would have found out that the ALC is a project of the American Family Coalition and The Washington Times Foundation – both front organizations for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a controversial Korean evangelist and founder of the Unification Church. The "faith-based summit" itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization.
…
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED !
…
In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
…
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
…
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

fallingblock

November 11, 2003, 04:16 AM

And very original and topical as well:rolleyes: .

Does typing hurt your fingers?:)

w4rma

November 11, 2003, 02:01 PM

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

George Bush {Sr.} and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

IMHO, Bush, Sr. was exactly correct and we are now seeing nearly exactly what he predicted happen.