I have a strange feeling that I've met Amanda before.... :shock:Originally Posted by jadams
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
- Posts
- 14,092
I have a strange feeling that I've met Amanda before.... :shock:
Holy cow, I actually agree with Satan's Solicitor!! Stop the presses!!
i'm not sure what your point is, here. sure, it could have been al-qaeda, but that was my point-- should we not expect the same people who killed nearly 3,000 with airplanes to be willing to behead one more?Oh, and by the way, the "outlaw organization" in question happens to be Al Qaeda, and the man who personally hacked off Berg's head appears to be Al Qaeda's new leader.
If Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion, which is questionable, it's a moot point now.
or maybe your were going off on a tangent.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
No, it didn;t, because it wasn't and isn't an illusion!! What they did does NOT reflect, overall, on America, it reflects on them! That's the truth that the media is trying, very hard, to deflect attention away from.HC, we were supposed to be the good guys. That's why Abu Ghraib is freakish. It destroyed that illusion.
Interesting Freudian slip, there, HC. I sometime believe Rumsfeld thinks he's Secretary of State, which would explain a lot.
Anyway, it is a reporter's job to dig into stories like the Abu Ghraib scandal to find out how far up the chain of command this goes. It's a reporter's job to get alternative POV's on how the war has been prosecuted from other members of the military (e.g., General Zinni, General Shinseki). It's a reporter's job to tell us how our tax money is being spent to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure -- what companies are profiting from it, who these independent security contractors are, etc. In the end, it will be the judgement of the American people that counts.
Is Bush's relationship with the press any better than, say, Ronald Reagan's? Let's not compare apples and oranges here with Clinton references. Let's compare conservative with "conservative."Likewise, Bush comes across better to the public than he does to reporters, who like to imagine that everyone agrees with their views.
Are the re-opened schools, the rebuilt phone systems, and the other positive things some Americans are doing over in Iraq a reflection on them, or on America? You can't have it both ways.No, it didn;t, because it wasn't and isn't an illusion!! What they did does NOT reflect, overall, on America, it reflects on them! That's the truth that the media is trying, very hard, to deflect attention away from.HC, we were supposed to be the good guys. That's why Abu Ghraib is freakish. It destroyed that illusion.
"Questioning authority" has nothing to do with the left wing/right wing divide. Both sides have authorities they recognize and expect to be obeyed and respected, and take pleasure in defying the other side's. The culture war is a contest between two sets of competing authoritarians, more or less.And it probably won't ever change. Journalism as a career tends to attract people who question authority. It doesn't seem to be a natural place for conservatives to hang out, unless you're an editorial writer, or a publisher.
The traditional journalists of the last 40 years are not into questioning authority as such, they're into emphasizng one set and opposing the other. That's why you almost never see any 'traditional' media source question the idea that the SCOTUS should rule on social matters, but they rabidly oppose any hint that religion has any role that matters. They see gay righs activists as a respectable and noble group that can not be questioned, but demanded explanations for why right-wingers thought the USSR was a danger.
Are the re-opened schools, the rebuilt phone systems, and the other positive things some Americans are doing over in Iraq a reflection on them, or on America? You can't have it both ways.No, it didn;t, because it wasn't and isn't an illusion!! What they did does NOT reflect, overall, on America, it reflects on them! That's the truth that the media is trying, very hard, to deflect attention away from.HC, we were supposed to be the good guys. That's why Abu Ghraib is freakish. It destroyed that illusion.
On the contrary. The reopened schools, restored power and phone systems, the removal of the torture instruments (the real thing!) from police stations, etc, ARE reflective on America as a whole, because that is our systematic goal. The idiots at Abu Ghraib were not carrying out an intentional national goal, the people trying to make Iraq liveable after decades of nightmare ARE acting in accordance with national goals.
So yes, I can, with perfect right, have that both ways.
true, it doesn't reflect on all of the US, but it does reflect on the organization to which they belong, the US military.
if you went into a major chain restaurant, and the server was an asshole, would you not bring it up to their manager? what if the manager did nothing, or worse, had instructed the server to be an asshole? or even if it was the unspoken policy of that restaurant to be assholes? would you say that the restaurant, as a chain, had their shit together?
abu ghraib is a far, far more serious version of the same situation.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Agreed. To bad they're not doing it.It's a reporter's job to tell us how our tax money is being spent to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure -- what companies are profiting from it, who these independent security contractors are, etc.
It's worse. The press wanted to bring Reagan down, but they weren't an intensely driven about it as they are with Bush. Partly, that's because Reagan was better at manipulating images and symbols than Bush will ever be, but mostly it's just because we're a different country now. In the early 80s, the G.I.s were a much bigger percentage of the population, the Boomers were still coming out of the Awakening and into 'chrysalis', and the culture wars were just starting.Is Bush's relationship with the press any better than, say, Ronald Reagan's? Let's not compare apples and oranges here with Clinton references. Let's compare conservative with "conservative."Likewise, Bush comes across better to the public than he does to reporters, who like to imagine that everyone agrees with their views.
Today, as the Boomers emerge from chrysalis and approach the Elder stage of life, the stakes rise, and tolerance is on the decline. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
Kiff: The day that Americans are thrown in jail for rebuilding Iraqi phone systems will be the day that this comment of yours makes sense.
Wrong. TK, unless you can show that it was a systematic example of military policy, it does not so reflect.true, it doesn't reflect on all of the US, but it does reflect on the organization to which they belong, the US military.
There is no evidence of your assessment. You have implied that it was unspoken military policy to do this. Where is your evidence of this?if you went into a major chain restaurant, and the server was an asshole, would you not bring it up to their manager? what if the manager did nothing, or worse, had instructed the server to be an asshole? or even if it was the unspoken policy of that restaurant to be assholes? would you say that the restaurant, as a chain, had their shit together?
abu ghraib is a far, far more serious version of the same situation.
It was the military who brought this out, the military who is trying the offenders, and for that matter it was the military who were dealing with this before the media got their pictures and decided they finally had a something worth running with. Liberals and the press keep trying to find some such evidence, but so far all they've come up with are things the military investigators themselves have found.
So no, this doesn't reflect on the military as a whole.
Weren't they supposed to be "softening up" the prisoners for interrogation so that we could get some good information on the Iraqi insurgents and possible Al Qaeda terrorist operations?
Isn't preventing terrorism a national goal?
no, i don't think it was unspoken policy of the military, but it was certainly someone in the chain of command's policy, spoken or unspoken. that's why, in my example, i proposed that it was the unspoken policy of "that restaurant", not the chain. but even so, it would reflect poorly on the chain. at a minimum, one of their restaurants is a rogue.
it sells. 'nuff said.
is it not the press' job to investigate as well? and would conservatives have not tried to find such evidence had something similar occurred under clinton?
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
and then
If the discussion is about "the media and us" and many are alleging that there is "liberal" bias in media, and part of this so-called "liberal" bias is defacing the character of the president, then my comment that George W. Bush does a poor job of representing himself and his ideas to the media is very relevant.Reagan was better at manipulating images and symbols than Bush will ever be. Maybe I should take up racketball?
You confirm this by stating in a later conversation that Reagan was a much better politician with the press "at manipulating images and symbols than Bush will ever be." I agree.
Furthermore, it is not up to you Mr. Too Afraid to Use My Real Name, to tell me which parts of what I say are relevant to the discussion and which parts aren't.
what the hell? "mr. too afraid to use my real name"? please....
for any purposes we have here, "HopefulCynic68" is a real enough name.
ok, "amanda"?... if, in fact, that is *your* real name.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
now now, Trollius. :P
I have no problems with your name Mr. King. Everybody knows no God-fearing person has the surname of Cynic. Only a Conservative would be so evasive about their identity. Care to tell us which shadowy secret government hideaway you are broadcasting from Mr. Cynic?
sorry.... i get touchy about these things.
*pats forehead with handkerchief*
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
ah, well there's the problem-- it's not "Cynic", it's "Cynic68".
i can see your confusion.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
TrollKing's web media watch, 5/25/2004
-----------------
counts of headlines regarding abu ghraib abuses on various "liberal" media homepages:
cnn.com - 1 (Former Iraq prision head suspended)
msnbc.msn.com - 0 (sort of 1, but it's really about prisoners in abu ghraib under saddam; some leftist tilt there, huh?)
abcnews.go.com - 0
cbsnews.com - 2 - 1 as news (Iraq Prison Commander Suspended) and another as opinion (Outsourcing Torture).
-----------------
stay tuned for more, updated when i feel like it until i get bored of it.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Here's a journalist that's launched thousands of directionless youngsters to accept low pay for a tough job. Carl Bernstein wrote the following Op-Ed in monday's ultra-Liberal, anti-American USA Today:
posted for discussion purposes only.
History lesson: GOP must stop BushMon May 24, 7:32 AM ET Add Op/Ed - USATODAY.com to My Yahoo!
By Carl Bernstein
Thirty years ago, a Republican president, facing impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, was forced to resign because of unprecedented crimes he and his aides committed against the Constitution and people of the United States. Ultimately, Richard Nixon left office voluntarily because courageous leaders of the Republican Party put principle above party and acted with heroism in defense of the Constitution and rule of law.
"What did the president know and when did he know it?" a Republican senator - Howard Baker of Tennessee - famously asked of Nixon 30 springtimes ago.
Today, confronted by the graphic horrors of Abu Ghraib prison, by ginned-up intelligence to justify war, by 652 American deaths since presidential operatives declared "Mission Accomplished," Republican leaders have yet to suggest that George W. Bush be held responsible for the disaster in Iraq (news - web sites) and that perhaps he, not just Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is ill-suited for his job.
Having read the report of Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, I expect Baker's question will resound again in another congressional investigation. The equally relevant question is whether Republicans will, Pavlov-like, continue to defend their president with ideological and partisan reflex, or remember the example of principled predecessors who pursued truth at another dark moment.
Today, the issue may not be high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather Bush's failure, or inability, to lead competently and honestly.
"You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror," Bush told Rumsfeld in a Wizard-of-Oz moment May 10, as Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and senior generals looked on. "You are a strong secretary of Defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude." The scene recalled another Oz moment: Nixon praising his enablers, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, as "two of the finest public servants I've ever known."
Sidestepping the Constitution
Like Nixon, this president decided the Constitution could be bent on his watch. Terrorism justified it, and Rumsfeld's Pentagon (news - web sites) promoted policies making inevitable what happened at Abu Ghraib - and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The legal justification for ignoring the Geneva Conventions regarding humane treatment of prisoners was enunciated in a memo to Bush, dated Jan. 25, 2002, from the White House counsel.
"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Alberto Gonzales wrote Bush. "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Quaint.
Since January, Bush and Rumsfeld have been aware of credible complaints of systematic torture. In March, Taguba's report reached Rumsfeld. Yet neither Bush nor his Defense secretary expressed concern publicly or leveled with Congress until photographic evidence of an American Gulag, possessed for months by the administration, was broadcast to the world.
Rumsfeld then explained, "You read it, as I say, it's one thing. You see these photographs and it's just unbelievable. ... It wasn't three-dimensional. It wasn't video. It wasn't color. It was quite a different thing." But the report also described atrocities never photographed or taped that were, often, even worse than the pictures - just as Nixon's actions were frequently far worse than his tapes recorded.
It was Barry Goldwater, the revered conservative, who convinced Nixon that he must resign or face certain conviction by the Senate - and perhaps jail. Goldwater delivered his message in person, at the White House, accompanied by Republican congressional leaders.
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) likewise put principle above party to cast votes for articles of impeachment. On the eve of his mission, Goldwater told his wife that it might cost him his Senate seat on Election Day. Instead, the courage of Republicans willing to dissociate their party from Nixon helped Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) win the presidency six years later, unencumbered by Watergate.
Another precedent is apt: In 1968, a few Democratic senators - J. William Fulbright, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Robert F. Kennedy - challenged their party's torpor and insisted that President Lyndon Johnson be held accountable for his disastrous and disingenuous conduct of the Vietnam War, adding weight to public pressure, which, eventually, forced Johnson not to seek re-election.
Today, the United States is confronted by another ill-considered war, conceived in ideological zeal and pursued with contempt for truth, disregard of history and an arrogant assertion of American power that has stunned and alienated much of the world, including traditional allies. At a juncture in history when the United States needed a president to intelligently and forcefully lead a real international campaign against terrorism and its causes, Bush decided instead to unilaterally declare war on a totalitarian state that never represented a terrorist threat; to claim exemption from international law regarding the treatment of prisoners; to suspend constitutional guarantees even to non-combatants at home and abroad; and to ignore sound military advice from the only member of his Cabinet - Powell - with the most requisite experience. Instead of using America's moral authority to lead a great global cause, Bush squandered it.
In Republican cloakrooms, as in the Oval Office, response to catastrophe these days is more concerned with politics and PR than principle. Said Tom DeLay, House majority leader: "A full-fledged congressional investigation - that's like saying we need an investigation every time there's police brutality on the street."
When politics topples principles
To curtail any hint of dissension in the ranks, Bush scheduled a "pep rally" with congressional Republicans - speaking 35 minutes, after which, characteristically, he took no questions and lawmakers dutifully circled the wagons.
What did George W. Bush know and when did he know it? Another wartime president, Harry Truman, observed that the buck stops at the president's desk, not the Pentagon.
But among Republicans today, there seems to be scant interest in asking tough questions - or honoring the example of courageous leaders of Congress who, not long ago, stepped forward, setting principle before party, to hold accountable presidents who put their country in peril.
Carl Bernstein's most recent book is a biography of John Paul II, His Holiness. He is co-author, with Bob Woodward, of All the President's Men and The Final Days.
Not-News about the Not-Wars
I wonder if there was much "rooting" for other than the home team a year ago on the occassion of the Not-War in Mesopotamia from the start of the bombing to the POTUS on the flight deck? Were there howls or even bleats at the attitude of the Washington Post toward this adventure 12 to 15 months ago? Did the battle rage at T4T upon the media coverage of the Not-War?
I was absent, so do advise. I recall the Not-War in Kosova. There was less discussion of the media coverage than the actual folly/wisdom of bombing in the "heart" of Europe and the military/political campaign of Mr. Clinton, Madame Albright, Gen. Clark et al. But there was less argument about the coverage of that adventure if I recall correctly.
A year ago in my local papers, on NBC, ABC, and CBS the Not-War in Iraq was shown with the Red, White and Blue on the set and in the Headlines? The media questioning is about a year too late. It may be that the fantasy of the "election year" divides drives the anger today... but is not Mr. Kerry saying he will not "bug out" and is not Mr. Bush now on bended knee with regard to the U.N.'s Algerian servant? The cousins of Buonaparte are not that far apart.
Even reasonable sources who opposed the invasion report that many Iraqis favored it. Sean Penn reported this, for example.
This is another subject that rarely, if ever, gets covered in the mainstream media. Weird. It's like covering the Civil War without mentioning the joy of the freed slaves.
On an Arabic forum on bbc.arabic.com, it is reported that roughly 70% of the Iraqi responders are positive about the invasion. I know that's not scientific, but it seems reasonable considering that every poll taken of Iraqis since the invasion confirms that a majority of Iraqis are positive about U.S. efforts there.
Here are some voices that the mainstream media consider irrelevant:
"What happens these days in Iraq is a natural process as a result from the transfer from dictatorship to democracy."
Ali Ahmed, Baghdad.
"I'm an Iraqi citizen and I want to thank president GWB from all my heart for the great service he's done to the Iraqi people by freeing us from one of the worst tyrants in history. This liberation didn't suit the enemies of humanity and freedom, thus we see them committing terrorist acts claiming to resist occupation by killing their own people, but that will not affect the Iraqis lust for freedom. Thanks again GWB."
Kamal-Adhamya, Baghdad.
"I won't forget the day when I saw a tank crushing the heads of 40 She'at Iraqis who were among others arrested for no obvious reason. Their hands were tied and put on the street for the tank to pass over their heads. The words" No She'at after today" where written on that tank.
"I was one of those people. My hands were tied to the back and a grenade was put between them and the safety pin removed. It was positioned in a way that it should explode if I was to make any move, and I was left a lone in a deserted area that was at least 5 Km. from any life. If it wasn't for the kindness of one of the soldiers who came back and rescued me, I would've certainly died soon."
Ihsan Al-Shimmari, Sweden.
"We lived our worst years under Saddam regime, a regime that many Arabs still believe in!We don't know why don't they leave us in peace, especially the Arab media that turns liberation into occupation and criminals into resistant. We, Iraqis, know the truth very well. The situation is much better now for the vast majority of Iraqis. Most of the people are government employees who used to get paid 4 or 6 thousand Iraqi dinars. Now the lowest salary is 100 thousand Iraqi Dinar. We feel free and we don't fear prisons and torture. The Arab media, as expected, made a huge fuss about the prisoners abuse in Abu-Gharib. Shame on them. Where were they when Saddam put explosives around a bunch of young men and blasted their bodies and they all saw that on TV? Where were they?"
Saman, Iraq.
"I had to leave Iraq because I didn't want to be one of Saddam's slaves. After so many years, I'm back to my country and I saw that people are not as nervous as they used to be. I saw hope in their eyes despite the security problems. All I have to say to our Arab brothers is,"We are practicing democracy. You keep enjoying dictatorship"
Ilham Hussain, Baghdad.
"I'm from an area not so far from Shat Al-Arab, still at Saddam's time we never had clean water supply. Now the situation is better and the British are very gentle and kind. I no longer fear for my life or my family's. The only problems we have are the thieves and some shortage in power supply."
Kadim Jabbar, Al-Zubair-Basra.
"The daily life in Basra is not that different from other parts of Iraq; It's very hot, the water and power supply are not Continueous, still I prefer to live a year in these conditions than one hour like those we lived under Saddam."
Abbas Mahir Tahir, Basra.
from that liberal rag, the onion:
US to Fight Terror with Terror
WASHINGTON, DC?In a response to recent acts of extreme violence against Americans in Iraq and mounting criticism of U.S. military policy at home, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced the government's new strategy of fighting terror with terror Monday.
"Look, in order to catch a rat, you gotta think like one," Rumsfeld said in a grainy and degraded videotape message filmed at an unknown location and released to CNN Monday. "We've been pussy-footing around the war on terrorism for years. All that time, the answer was right in front of us: In order to wipe out terror around the globe, once and for all, we've gotta beat them at their own game."
"We tried playing fair," Rumsfeld continued. "But how can you play by the rules when your opponent doesn't even know the rules? You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. That's just the way it is, folks. It's a dog-eat-dog world."
On the seven-minute tape, Rumsfeld is joined by counter-terrorist leaders Vice-President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft, each seated on folding chairs in front of an American flag. Ashcroft described some tactics the government currently uses?pre-dawn assaults on civilian targets and subjecting potential stateside traitors to psychological intimidation?as a "small step in the right direction."
"I can't really say what we have planned for the future," Rumsfeld said. "As terrorists, fear and uncertainty will be our best weapons. Let me just say that the gloves are off. It is inevitable that indiscriminate attacks will be carried out, and innocents will lose their lives, but the end will justify the means."
Rumsfeld refused to comment on the recent abuse of military prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, other than to characterize those abuses as "nothing compared to what we are capable of."
"It's vital to remember that these terrorists hate freedom," Rumsfeld said. "Well, guess what? From now on, we're going to hate it even more. Do you think terrorists care about due process and fair treatment of prisoners? Of course not. Why should we give them the upper hand? You fight fire with fire."
Cheney restated that the goal of the new policy is to put an end to terror around the world, once and for all.
"It's time to get this war over with," Cheney said. "The philosopher Eric Hoffer said, 'You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.' Well, we've been observing, but finally we've started taking notes. We'll have these terrorists running scared in no time."
Cheney urged Americans to "be on alert" in upcoming months.
"Seneca once said, 'To be feared is to fear: No one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind,'" Cheney said. "If we want these terrorists to fear the U.S., we as a people need to be filled with fear. Expect to see more heavily armed, uniformed officers, both at home and abroad."
Elliott Abrams, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director For Near East and North African Affairs, said that the Bush Administration acknowledged the ethical inconsistencies of its opposing-terrorism-through-terrorism stance, but doesn't really care.
"Look, any eighth-grader knows that the line between good and evil is blurry," Abrams said. "Our concern is the safety of the American people. An eye for an eye: Let's see if that plan works."
Abrams refused to provide clues about the time and method of attack, other than to allude to an "election-year surprise."
"Just wait and you'll see," Abrams said. "Martin Luther King said, 'Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.' Well, enemies of democracy and freedom around the world are going to find out just how right he was. They'll see just how dark it can get."
Experts from the Mukhabarat el-Aama Egyptian intelligence service have deemed the message authentic.
"There is no doubt who the men on the tape are," spokesman Sulieman Assad said. "Cheney can clearly be recognized from previous tapes, albeit a bit aged, and John Ashcroft is wearing his iconic stern, fanatical expression. I would recommend that the Arab world raise its security alert level to 'severe,' but apparently, it has already been that way for some time."
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
