PDA

View Full Version : How Candy Dropped From the Sky Changed World History


Bloggingheads
06-01-2008, 07:52 PM

bjkeefe
06-01-2008, 08:06 PM
Just started watching, and I don't know how much longer I'll last. Thoughts on the opening segment:

The idea of a speechwriter who worked for George W. Bush saying Barack Obama can't give a speech kills irony dead, digs it up, and kills it again.

And now he's here to tell us that he didn't like the Philadelphia race speech? Again? Wow. Compared to this, Mickey on immigration is fresh.

Frum has become such a blatant hack that he's not worth listening to anymore. He used to present some ideas that were worth listening to but now he's just preaching to a very small choir. I'm sure there will be a few here who will be delighted by his words and will pile on, but really, he has no hope of getting anyone but the hardcore rightwingers to listen to him.

bjkeefe
06-01-2008, 08:13 PM
PS: For your information, Mr. Frum, current count for views on the Philadelphia speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU): not "tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands." Latest count: 4,508,293. On that one page alone.

As I understand it, YouTube only counts a view if the video is watched end to end.

fedorovingtonboop
06-01-2008, 08:37 PM
dave - why are you such a con robot? read the evidence then make up your mind.

Sgt Schultz
06-01-2008, 08:42 PM
Obama's race speech is now "inoperative" -- haha!

pod2
06-01-2008, 10:28 PM
Sorry, what, exactly are we to conclude from the European countries' refusal to provide troops to an occupation of Iraq?

What would it mean to spend more money on education and infrastructure than military expenditures? Has Frum visited France lately? Has he driven around the country, taken trains, seen the state of the infrastructure? Spending half of the discretionary budget on maintaining what Washington warned were standing armies and what Eisenhower warned was the Military industrial complex does not make us stronger in the 21st century. The refusal to provide troops in Iraq is a fairly ridiculous and contraindicative measure for Frum to use. Sending troops overseas as the sole measure of national strength and/or health seems so first century.

Whatfur
06-01-2008, 11:53 PM
Sure liked to hear someone from the left say this!!! (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:28:35&out=00:29:20)

And OF COURSE its because of the media age...or should I say the NEGATIVE LEFT WING media age. We get months and months of coverage followed by months more of left wing talking points about a handfull of soldiers at ABU GRAIB. We get months and months of coverage including Murtha slandering a handful of Marines about Haditha based on a BS Time Magazine speculation...and when they are pretty much all cleared of all charges, we get almost nothing!!!

But yet on a daily basis thousands of our soldiers ARE winning the hearts and minds of thousands of Iraqi's and unless you dig really hard you hear nothing of it because the MSM and the International media is too consumed with BDS, blame America first or anti-americanism that they cannot bear the thought of anything good going on in Iraq...so they dwell on anything gutteral as they try to head off any positive notions and positive progress.

pod2
06-02-2008, 12:06 AM
Sure liked to hear someone from the left say this!!! (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:28:35&out=00:29:20)

And OF COURSE its because of the media age...or should I say the NEGATIVE LEFT WING media age. We get months and months of coverage followed by months more of left wing talking points about a handfull of soldiers at ABU GRAIB. We get months and months of coverage including Murtha slandering a handful of Marines about Haditha based on a BS Time Magazine speculation...and when they are pretty much all cleared of all charges, we get almost nothing!!!

But yet on a daily basis thousands of our soldiers ARE winning the hearts and minds of thousands of Iraqi's and unless you dig really hard you hear nothing of it because the MSM and the International media is too consumed with BDS, blame America first or anti-americanism that they cannot bear the thought of anything good going on in Iraq...so they dwell on anything gutteral as they try to head off any positive notions and positive progress.

I hate to break it to you, but when you are an occupying force, the local populations seem to inconveniently focus on the cases of indiscriminate rape, murder, and torture. I'm sure that there were plenty of Soviet soldiers that were trying to win over the populations of Afghanistan in 1975 or in Prague 1965 or Chechnya 1999. It's just that torture, massive civilian casualties tend towards inconvenient sentiment on the part of local populations. Ask a Tibetan if you doubt this.

Whatfur
06-02-2008, 12:16 AM
I hate to break it to you, but when you are an occupying force, the local populations seem to inconveniently focus on the cases of indiscriminate rape, murder, and torture. I'm sure that there were plenty of Soviet soldiers that were trying to win over the populations of Afghanistan in 1975 or in Prague 1965 or Chechnya 1999. It's just that torture, massive civilian casualties tend towards inconvenient sentiment on the part of local populations. Ask a Tibetan if you doubt this.

Talking about Iraq here Pod. Deflection does not work here.
I suggest you read Yon's book. This force in Iraq is operating under a microscope. YOUR microscope. You actually have nothing to teach me.

bjkeefe
06-02-2008, 01:09 AM
You actually have nothing to teach me.

In other words, you are unwilling to learn.

I'd save your breath (carpal tendons), pod2. There's no getting someone like Whatfur ever to admit anything bad about the military, just as there's no getting him to admit that the entire left does not, in fact, hate the troops. Not even this guy (http://www.buffalobeast.com/126/Fuck.the.troops.Ian.Murphy.html), if you read carefully enough. (This guy (http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/reviews.cfm/id/1457/page/fuck_the_troops.html) may, slightly.)

Whatfur is permanently stuck in a "with us or against us" mindset. He has no gray areas. Just watch how he responds to this.

fedorovingtonboop
06-02-2008, 01:57 AM
"...But yet on a daily basis thousands of our soldiers ARE winning the hearts and minds of thousands of Iraqi's and unless you dig really hard you hear nothing of it because the MSM and the International media is too consumed with BDS, blame America first or anti-americanism that they cannot bear the thought of anything good going on in Iraq...so they dwell on anything gutteral as they try to head off any positive notions and positive progress.[/QUOTE]

this is so funny to me , it sounds like you copy and pasted a michelle malkin blog post! even the MSM bogeyman is in there. sorry man, but i seriously had to to back and check to make sure you weren't joking because this is an excellent fox news/lgf talking points summary for the last five years. if only the MSM would give Iraq a fair shake everything would work out, right??
we know the soldiers are trying to do the right thing. it doesn't matter. as long as we are on their land, they're gonna continue blowing up our soldiers. we will never ever "win them over." Britain literally already did this in the same country a hundred years ago and got the same result.
if Europe invaded the US to help "overthrow" our staunch capitalists for their (in ways) superior and more socialist system would the MI militia ever be ok with their presence. no, they wouldn't. never
it's perfectly fine to disagree with the majority but you have to do it as a free thinker. and as a formerly (partially) con person i can tell you're not being independent, letting go of the way you want things to be be and thinking for yourself. just let it go, dude, iraq was a disaster....even most cons agree. we know there's lots of good stuff happening but it's neither here nor there because it's a freakin' disaster.

Whatfur
06-02-2008, 06:33 AM
In other words, you are unwilling to learn.

I'd save your breath (carpal tendons), pod2. There's no getting someone like Whatfur ever to admit anything bad about the military, just as there's no getting him to admit that the entire left does not, in fact, hate the troops. Not even this guy (http://www.buffalobeast.com/126/Fuck.the.troops.Ian.Murphy.html), if you read carefully enough. (This guy (http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/reviews.cfm/id/1457/page/fuck_the_troops.html) may, slightly.)

Whatfur is permanently stuck in a "with us or against us" mindset. He has no gray areas. Just watch how he responds to this.


Not about not willing to learn...pod2s examples seemed to dwell on occupations by communist regimes (there's a shock), and their similarities to what we are trying to do in Iraq are miniscule.

Not about hating the troops either...that's pretty silly Brendan as are your links. Nice try though...you are a pretty good example of the problem yourself.

Listen to my link (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:28:35&out=00:29:20) again and then go read Yon's book...and take something for that BDS.

Whatfur
06-02-2008, 06:58 AM
Why is it you all make arguments that have nothing to do with the point? Maybe I should have left out the hearts and minds comment. But if you have not read any stories of our winning over some Iraqi's then I can only suggest you "occupy" your mind with a couple.

So you disagree with Mr. Cherny that the Media has pounded on things like Abu Graib, or shooting up a Koran while ignoring the thousands of positive stories of "kindness" and heroism our troops have shown and are showing? Or if you agree then, why do you think this misleading use of the media is true? What kind of affect on American opinion, world opinion, and the opinion of Iraqi's themselves has this had? Do you deny the this pounding coupled with the negativism of Democrat leaders has not empowered the enemy, frustrated the troops and confused Iraqi's who actually want to believe that they can have and live in a country free of fear?

And if you have the ability to get your minds around these questions then ask yourself where we might be if instead of being painted as occupiers making human pyrmids of naked Iraqi's we were painted as liberators and Democratic enablers? To head you off at the pass...Do not get hung up on the denial here of whether we are liberators or enablers... but I am just looking to see if you think that if all our leaders and the media pounded on the positives instead of the negatives whether that would have made any difference.

piscivorous
06-02-2008, 09:19 AM
Of course then there is always Andrew Sullivan's take on the issue Obama And Iraq (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/obama-and-iraq.html)

JIM3CH
06-02-2008, 09:27 AM
I have always had respect for David Frum for stepping into the fray at Bhtv with his wildly conservative views. As a Bush apologist, however, he is now really groping for straws donít you think?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:42:21&out=00:42:34

Incompetence Dodger
06-02-2008, 11:02 AM
I have always had respect for David Frum for stepping into the fray at Bhtv with his wildly conservative views. As a Bush apologist, however, he is now really groping for straws donít you think?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:42:21&out=00:42:34

Yes, you do have to give David Frum credit for being willing to play "away games" (I'm not thinking of bhTV so much as, say, Bill Maher's show). Also for assiduously not attempting to use volume, bluster, or sheer repetition of talking points as a substitute for persuasion. That said, what he said 30 seconds before the bit you linked to (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:41:58&out=00:43:28) is what really floored me. Thank heavens there were at least a few people like David Frum in the White House in 2001-2003 giving this sort of wise counsel to the President (substituting "Saddam Hussein" for "Hugo Chavez," of course, and with Scott McClellan offering similarly sage advice on domestic affairs). What's that you say? That's not what they were saying back then? They were, in fact, saying essentially the exact opposite?

Oh.

Well, better late than never. But only infinitesimally better.

Thus Spoke Elvis
06-02-2008, 12:04 PM
Just started watching, and I don't know how much longer I'll last. Thoughts on the opening segment:

The idea of a speechwriter who worked for George W. Bush saying Barack Obama can't give a speech kills irony dead, digs it up, and kills it again.

I disagree.

This conflates the speech writer with the speech deliverer. They are usually two different people. If you just read the text of their most significant speeches, you could make the case that W. Bush's speeches were better than those of Bill Clinton. But Clinton's delivery of mediocre text was usually superior to Bush's delivery of a well-written speech.

Even if you want to make the case that the delivery of a speech is an important consideration when determining whether it's well-written, I'd still make the case that many of Bush's speeches have been quite good -- at least so long as your assessment is based on their effectiveness. Think about Bush's address to Congress after 9/11, or his 2004 address at the Republican National Convention -- those speeches had an enormous impact upon their audience. Bush's speech to Congress (which Frum had a hand in writing, btw) instilled confidence in both Republicans and Democrats that Bush was capable of responding to the attack on America -- a view that was much less widely held on 9/11 and 9/12. I would make the case that Bush's 2004 RNC speech won him the presidential election, as it raised his poll standings over Kerry to the point where he could afford to do poorly in their subsequent debates.


And now he's here to tell us that he didn't like the Philadelphia race speech? Again? Wow. Compared to this, Mickey on immigration is fresh.

Frum's position was a bit more nuanced (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:2:50&out=00:04:37) than that. He thinks Obama gives great speeches in the 19th century sense; that is, they are effective in open-air, political rally settings. But in the modern age of mass communication, speeches are going to be presented by media outlets in snippets and soundbites, and Obama's speeches aren't very effective when truncated.

While I personally liked Obama's speech on race (though strangely, I found it better when I read the text than when I heard Obama deliver it), I agree with Frum that it wasn't very effective. Based on the voting patterns in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, it seemed to do little to assuage concerns that white working class voters have about him. It was the concerns of those voters that Obama was attempting to mollify when he delivered the Philadelphia speech. If a speech fails to convince its target audience, how can it be deemed effective?

Big Wayne
06-02-2008, 12:15 PM
And OF COURSE its because of the media age...or should I say the NEGATIVE LEFT WING media age. We get months and months of coverage followed by months more of left wing talking points about a handfull of soldiers at ABU GRAIB. We get months and months of coverage including Murtha slandering a handful of Marines about Haditha based on a BS Time Magazine speculation...and when they are pretty much all cleared of all charges, we get almost nothing!!!

... the MSM and the International media is too consumed with BDS, blame America first or anti-americanism that they cannot bear the thought of anything good going on in Iraq...so they dwell on anything gutteral as they try to head off any positive notions and positive progress.

Yeah, the BDS-infected, anti-American liberal media.

Like "Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101961_2.html?nav=rss_print/asection), the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration 'led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions.'"

Big Wayne
06-02-2008, 12:29 PM
First of all, it's a given that talking to Whatfur is a fruitless exercise. We're half way through 2008, and the boy is still a fervent Bush loyalist. This shows total and absolute immunity to reality. There's nothing anyone here will ever say to get through to him. Some people (about 27%) are just impervious to reason.

Do you deny the this pounding coupled with the negativism of Democrat leaders has not empowered the enemy
Empowered the enemy? LOL! What, like every time a Democrat says something bad about Bush, the bad guys get a power-up and do 25% more damage in combat? Or they develop anti-missile skin so they can survive Apache fire? Please explain the process by which a free press "empowers" the enemy.



frustrated the troops
Frustrated the troops? Why? Do the troops feel entitled to be lied to about the disaster in Iraq? The troops are facing enemy fire and IEDs and you think they wilt because we don't limit their media exposure to fairy tales and happy talk? You want to treat them like children. They're not children.

By the way, why the hell aren't you in Iraq? I hear the Army needs infantry.

You must just be too frustrated to serve, eh? I know, it's been very hard for you war advocates, with the big mean media and Democrats harshing on your war buzz.



and confused Iraqi's
Yeah, that's right. The Iraqis are judging the situation by what they hear on American television!



And if you have the ability to get your minds around these questions then ask yourself where we might be if instead of being painted as occupiers making human pyrmids of naked Iraqi's we were painted as liberators and Democratic enablers? To head you off at the pass...Do not get hung up on the denial here of whether we are liberators or enablers... but I am just looking to see if you think that if all our leaders and the media pounded on the positives instead of the negatives whether that would have made any difference.
Made any difference?

What kind of difference are you talking about? I thought everything in Iraq was going swimmingly. Isn't that your position? Or do you actually admit the war has been a mess, only so that you can blame it on the media?

Incompetence Dodger
06-02-2008, 01:07 PM
While I personally liked Obama's speech on race (though strangely, I found it better when I read the text than when I heard Obama deliver it), I agree with Frum that it wasn't very effective. Based on the voting patterns in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, it seemed to do little to assuage concerns that white working class voters have about him. It was the concerns of those voters that Obama was attempting to mollify when he delivered the Philadelphia speech. If a speech fails to convince its target audience, how can it be deemed effective?

Well, for one, the Gettysburg Address was famously a flop initially (disclaimer: as much as I liked Obama's speech on race, and as much as I think it genuinely marks a turning point, I am NOT making a 1:1 equivalence between it and the Gettysburg Address; let's not get stuck on stupid, people).

I was fascinated by Cherny's point that Obama went through that speech and de-soundbited it. Very astute, both in terms of political self-defense, frustrating those who would use turn those soundbites against him (Exhibit A here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:07:26&out=00:07:57)), and as part of what seems to be his campaign to tone down the national pie-fight and get liberals and conservatives that are willing to engage each other in good faith to do so on a more productive level.

In that vein, Elvis, I'd like to echo what Brendan said the other day about wishing there were more conservatives like you.

bjkeefe
06-02-2008, 01:20 PM
Elvis:

This conflates the speech writer with the speech deliverer.

A fair point. Of course, I cannot completely agree on the effectiveness of Bush's speeches, since they certainly failed to win me over. I do grant that he (and his words, via Frum, et al) seemed to get a good reaction from a lot of people at the time, but I wonder how much of a challenge it would be for anyone to have rallied the American public by talking tough after we were attacked.

While I personally liked Obama's speech on race (though strangely, I found it better when I read the text than when I heard Obama deliver it), I agree with Frum that it wasn't very effective.

I think you and Frum make a mistake in evaluating the speech's effectiveness -- it sounds to me that you're both saying that it failed to be a magic bullet. There was no way he was going to alleviate everyone's concerns, no matter what he said. The speech did work for a lot of people -- if you look back at the commentary in the days following, you'll find all sorts of glowing reactions. I'd also say that it's better to consider the speech as a step in the right direction to addressing an enormously complex issue, rather than as a question of did it work or did it not.

Another thought: Purely politically, one measure of its effectiveness might be this: The Wright controversy did not cost Obama the nomination, when many people felt it likely that it would.

piscivorous
06-02-2008, 01:44 PM
Yeah, the BDS-infected, anti-American liberal media.

Like "Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101961_2.html?nav=rss_print/asection), the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration 'led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions.'"Oh you mean the General Sanchez that was in charge of Iraq when the situation over there was deteriorating. That General Sanchez right? I wonder if his assessment that it was someone elseís fault, even though he was the guy primarily responsible for Iraq at the time, might be just a little self serving.

Big Wayne
06-02-2008, 01:54 PM
Oh you mean the General Sanchez that was in charge of Iraq when the situation over there was deteriorating. That General Sanchez right? I wonder if his assessment that it was someone elseís fault, even though he was the guy primarily responsible for Iraq at the time, might be just a little self serving.

I'm glad you are willing to admit there have been problems with the war effort, even if you feel the need to blame the troops, instead of the commander in chief.

piscivorous
06-02-2008, 02:26 PM
Aren't you cute. You must have been taking lessons from bjkeefe at misconstruing a comment instead of addressing it. As a Matter of fact since General Sanchez was one of the primary sources that the CIC was basing his decision on should rightly be noted.

Whatfur
06-02-2008, 02:36 PM
Big Wayne

I posed these questions in a serious vain. You have shown to either not be very "big" (once again), or you have shown an inability to actually understand the questions or both. I am not here to draw stick people for you.

Thus Spoke Elvis
06-02-2008, 02:51 PM
Well, for one, the Gettysburg Address was famously a flop initially (disclaimer: as much as I liked Obama's speech on race, and as much as I think it genuinely marks a turning point, I am NOT making a 1:1 equivalence between it and the Gettysburg Address; let's not get stuck on stupid, people).

True enough, and I don't mean to suggest that immediate effectiveness is the only measure by which to judge a speech. In time, speeches that didn't seem so impressive may come to be seen as transcendent. But unlike the Gettysburg Address, I don't think Obama's speech will stand the test of time -- the context and (yes) much of its content were too temporal in nature. And because of that, I'm comfortable judging the speech first and foremost on its effectiveness upon the intended audience.

In that vein, Elvis, I'd like to echo what Brendan said the other day about wishing there were more conservatives like you.

Thanks...I think.

Thus Spoke Elvis
06-02-2008, 03:13 PM
Elvis:
I do grant that he (and his words, via Frum, et al) seemed to get a good reaction from a lot of people at the time, but I wonder how much of a challenge it would be for anyone to have rallied the American public by talking tough after we were attacked.

There's naturally going to be some rallying around the flag/President at a time like 9/11, but Bush's address to Congress was a great speech. He talked tough beginning on the day (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-1.html) of the attack (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html#), but before that address, he didn't inspire nearly the degree of confidence.


I think you and Frum make a mistake in evaluating the speech's effectiveness -- it sounds to me that you're both saying that it failed to be a magic bullet. There was no way he was going to alleviate everyone's concerns, no matter what he said. The speech did work for a lot of people -- if you look back at the commentary in the days following, you'll find all sorts of glowing reactions.

It's true that the speech worked for a lot of media types, but they were not the target audience, and their opinion was much less meaningful in this instance than that of white working class voters. While I don't think it was possible for Obama to deliver a speech that would completely win over this group, I do think that a shorter, more direct speech that more forcefully denounced Wright would have been more effective.

Another thought: Purely politically, one measure of its effectiveness might be this: The Wright controversy did not cost Obama the nomination, when many people felt it likely that it would.

I can't say whether the damage done by Wright was overblown or not. Some have argued that it already crested by the time of Obama's speech. But there is still a chance that the Wright controversy and its lingering aftermath will cost Obama the general election in a year when Democrats should be guaranteed the presidency.

bkjazfan
06-02-2008, 03:44 PM
Maybe Frum was in a bad mood today. He seemed to be reaching on some of his criticisms of obama and the Democratic Party.

He said Obama has little international experience which to the best of my knowledge is true (no, living in Indonesnia as a child does not count). In the modern era what president has? Reagan, Clinton, or GW Bush - I don't think so. In my voting years most have not.

John

arg11
06-02-2008, 06:24 PM
The thing that Frum is conveniently eliding in his discussion of the race speech is that Obama did answer this question numerous times in interviews and debates, but nobody accepted his answer. So he gave the race speech in order to contextualize the entire debate. Moreover, Frum's referring to Wright as "an evil man saying evil things" is typical right-wing bullshit. Let's quote Falwell a couple of times: "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us what we probably deserve." "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this [i.e. 9/11] happen.'" "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" Compared to Falwell, Wright is a moderate, but would Frum call Falwell an "evil man saying evil things"? I doubt it. Instead, he would tell me: "That's not the issue here. The issue is that Barack Obama has this demagogue pastor. Does McCain have a demagogue pastor?" Answer: Yes, Rod Parsley, who believes that America has a God-given mission to destroy Islam.

bkjazfan
06-02-2008, 06:45 PM
arg 11,

Barak Obama went to Jeremiah's Wright's church for 20 years. The reverend and this Father Phlegar engaged in "hate speech" pure and simple. If that's moderate what is radical?

John

bjkeefe
06-02-2008, 07:28 PM
John:

Barak Obama went to Jeremiah's Wright's church for 20 years. The reverend and this Father Phlegar engaged in "hate speech" pure and simple. If that's moderate what is radical?

Are you of the opinion that that's all Wright spoke of?

Probably also worth noting that Pfleger wasn't a member of Obama's church, just an occasional guest speaker.

piscivorous
06-02-2008, 07:41 PM
I should probably go and link to some obscure publication now that shows the links between Senator Obama and the Pastor Pfleger, and various grants to the good Pastorr's organizations and affiliates, but they would be ancient history and of little interest to you so I wont bother. Of sorry I already did that here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=79262#post79262)

Big Wayne
06-02-2008, 07:56 PM
Aren't you cute. You must have been taking lessons from bjkeefe at misconstruing a comment instead of addressing it. As a Matter of fact since General Sanchez was one of the primary sources that the CIC was basing his decision on should rightly be noted.

Hey, I'm just happy to discover that you're not mindlessly claiming that the war has been a smash success since day one, as your kind usually does, even if you do have to blame LT. GEN. Sanchez while excusing Bush.

bjkeefe
06-02-2008, 07:57 PM
pisc:

Isn't the air in your cocoon getting a little stale? From what's wafting out of it, I'd sure say so.

piscivorous
06-02-2008, 08:04 PM
Once again your answer is innuendo instead of reasoned counter argument.

piscivorous
06-02-2008, 08:11 PM
A good primmer about another area of the world where ewe still have troops enforcing a tentative peace. A Dark Corner of Europe, Part I (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/06/a-dark-corner-o.php) It is rather long but there are some nice pictures and I found it interesting.

Big Wayne
06-02-2008, 08:17 PM
A good primmer about another area of the world where ewe still have troops enforcing a tentative peace. A Dark Corner of Europe, Part I (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/06/a-dark-corner-o.php) It is rather long but there are some nice pictures and I found it interesting.

Thanks for the link. The author says,

Serbia did not belong to the Western half of the Roman Empire with Rome as its capital. It belonged, instead, to the Eastern half of the empire whose capital is now Istanbul.

This was very educational for me. I was previously unaware that the Roman Empire still existed. Shows how little I know!

We should ask them if they want to join the coalition of the willing.

bjkeefe
06-02-2008, 08:20 PM
Once again your answer is innuendo instead of reasoned counter argument.

There is no reasoning with you, Pisc, not on the subject of Obama.

And you still have yet to answer my question: Is your obsession with reading, and linking to, anti-Obama screeds an example of being in a cocoon or not?

osmium
06-02-2008, 08:23 PM
way to go, david frum (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:16:51&out=00:17:09). there are some people, who if they're against you, you must have done something right.

piscivorous
06-02-2008, 08:37 PM
Can't speak to the authors time discontinuity there but I imagine it has some thing to do with the historical name(s) for Istanbul, historically Byzantium or Constantinople, and it's having been renamed after the conquest of by the Ottoman Empire in the 1400s. I would speculate however that as Mr Totem does not have much of a staff, to proof read his postings, it would not surprise me that an error like this might occur.

AemJeff
06-02-2008, 09:15 PM
Sure liked to hear someone from the left say this!!! (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:28:35&out=00:29:20)

And OF COURSE its because of the media age...or should I say the NEGATIVE LEFT WING media age. We get months and months of coverage followed by months more of left wing talking points about a handfull of soldiers at ABU GRAIB. We get months and months of coverage including Murtha slandering a handful of Marines about Haditha based on a BS Time Magazine speculation...and when they are pretty much all cleared of all charges, we get almost nothing!!!

But yet on a daily basis thousands of our soldiers ARE winning the hearts and minds of thousands of Iraqi's and unless you dig really hard you hear nothing of it because the MSM and the International media is too consumed with BDS, blame America first or anti-americanism that they cannot bear the thought of anything good going on in Iraq...so they dwell on anything gutteral as they try to head off any positive notions and positive progress.

A few points.

Firstly the "left-wing media" meme is as baseless now as it's ever been. Competition is the definitive model for most media organizations, ideology be damned. Getting to a distinctive story first is followed closely by jumping on bandwagons as a primary motivation for what and how things get covered. The supposed bias of reporters is balanced by the biases of their corporate masters, and neither is a monolithic bloc.

Secondly, the Haditha Marines weren't vindicated, the charges were reduced based on the available evidence. It's unambiguously true that U.S. Marines were responsible for the deaths of non-combatants, including women and children and the occupants of a taxi who were shot dead on the street after being ordered out of the car. I don't give a shit about motives or emotions in a case like this, these guys were wrong - the asshole who sued Murtha for using the phrase "in cold blood" was shot down, rightfully. I'm not always particularly happy with the Congressman, but in this case I support what he said.

Third, Yon can write, but he has a propensity for telling unsubstantiated tales ("Boy Baked and Fed to Parents") that doesn't speak well for either his veracity or his intellectual standards.

AemJeff
06-02-2008, 10:45 PM
Why is it you all make arguments that have nothing to do with the point? Maybe I should have left out the hearts and minds comment. But if you have not read any stories of our winning over some Iraqi's then I can only suggest you "occupy" your mind with a couple.

So you disagree with Mr. Cherny that the Media has pounded on things like Abu Graib, or shooting up a Koran while ignoring the thousands of positive stories of "kindness" and heroism our troops have shown and are showing? Or if you agree then, why do you think this misleading use of the media is true? What kind of affect on American opinion, world opinion, and the opinion of Iraqi's themselves has this had? Do you deny the this pounding coupled with the negativism of Democrat leaders has not empowered the enemy, frustrated the troops and confused Iraqi's who actually want to believe that they can have and live in a country free of fear?

And if you have the ability to get your minds around these questions then ask yourself where we might be if instead of being painted as occupiers making human pyrmids of naked Iraqi's we were painted as liberators and Democratic enablers? To head you off at the pass...Do not get hung up on the denial here of whether we are liberators or enablers... but I am just looking to see if you think that if all our leaders and the media pounded on the positives instead of the negatives whether that would have made any difference.

I'll amplify what i said elsewhere. The reason a big deal gets made about the incidents you're referring to is because they're a big deal.

American Soldiers Torture Captives

That's an amazing headline. It also happened to be true. "America" is supposed to mean something. We see ourselves as the "Good Guys." The people who committed the atrocities at Abu Ghraib are responsible not only for the horrific acts themselves, but for sullying the reputation of the U.S. and squandering our moral authority. That "moral authority," by the way, is an important strategic asset, something that when it's lost is extremely hard to regain or reconstitute. Instead of blaming the "MSM" for ideological heresy, consider the "man bites dog" nature of these stories.

And further consider the pride and feeling of responsibility that should be synonymous with wearing the uniform of the United States military. These people not only were guilty of ugly, gratuitous acts and squandering America's hard won moral authority, they, and I include the Marines from Haditha, virtually spit on their uniforms and dishonored the institutions those uniforms represent. If you want to blame someone for what you see as an imbalanced depiction of events in Iraq, blame them - not the media, not liberals.

willmybasilgrow
06-02-2008, 10:48 PM
I was inspired by Obama, thrilled with him. A moment of clarity came to me that formed the thought that ONLY he can be our next leader. It had to be him. I voted for him in our primary. Now, the moment has passed. I think he encapsulated something on race so very intensely and perfectly and succinctly. He peaked, in a way. I will vote for him in the general, yes. But I'm much less enthusiastic about him than I used to be. But then, the whole election thing grew stale a long time ago.

pod2
06-02-2008, 10:57 PM
Talking about Iraq here Pod. Deflection does not work here.
I suggest you read Yon's book. This force in Iraq is operating under a microscope. YOUR microscope. You actually have nothing to teach me.

You're right, I should have been clearer. I AM talking about Iraq. When Iraqis see the hundreds of photos taken at Abu Ghraib, learn about the atrocities at Haditha, see the massive violence unleashed in their communities, they react just as other people do under occupation. Why is it so easy for us to understand the resistance of the Afghans in the 1970s, the Tibetans in the last 50 years, or the the Chechnyans in the last decade, but it does not compute when it comes to the Iraqis.

I'm not saying that I have anything to teach you. I don't know anything about you. I was just trying to post a comment on the boards.

Looking at things from the perspective of the people subject to an occupation that my tax money and implicit consent make possible is my responsibility. Even OUR responsibility.

piscivorous
06-02-2008, 11:04 PM
willmybasilgrow Better than my broccoli did this year I hope. Great name I love it.

jh in sd
06-03-2008, 12:29 AM
bj, Even though Wright spoke of positive things, it does not mitigate the hateful comments. That would be like saying if a man beats his wife but is a great philanthropist, then he is mostly a pretty good guy.

As for the Catholic priest, even creepier than his ridiculous tirade was the reaction of the good Christians in the congregation.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 01:09 AM
You're right, I should have been clearer.
...
Pod2 and AEMJeff,

I do not discount Abu Graib nor Haditha, although as the Haditha story has come to fruition it is not the same story the Murtha described nor the original one Time did. And I believe the only reason Murtha did not have to face charges was because of congressional immunity (you left that part out). I believe the final court martial is going on right now and its for not properly investigating the incidient...you know ...down from "cold blooded murder" being spashed across the world highlighted by a Democrat Congressman. Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? I guess that goes out the window when charges are dropped or not-guilty verdicts do not go the way of negative news for our troops and positive news for the LEFT.

However, the whole point of my post which you both continue to try to ignore is the overwhelming attention the left and its media gave and continues to give a handful of negative stories about a couple handfuls of soldiers...while hundreds of positive stories go left untold. I started the thread linking to the Cherny's admission of this. I guess you really don't want to confront the facts nor my questions, but just continue to want to work the negatives. That's fine as it goes to proving my point.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 01:17 AM
Whatfur:

... while hundreds of positive stories go left untold.

What are these stories? If they're being untold, how do you know them?

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 01:24 AM
Whatfur:

What are these stories? If they're being untold, how do you know them?

I have been reading Michael Yon for years. And the stories do not go untold on conservative sites, Iraqi blogs written by Iraqi's, and Military blogs. Some creep into the WSJ, and even the Washington Post....like the other day...

Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)


And of course FOX news lets a little seep in.

Start with Yon's book and once you are through with that I have a number of really cool stories I can share.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 01:37 AM
bj, Even though Wright spoke of positive things, it does not mitigate the hateful comments. That would be like saying if a man beats his wife but is a great philanthropist, then he is mostly a pretty good guy.

As for the Catholic priest, even creepier than his ridiculous tirade was the reaction of the good Christians in the congregation.

As for Wright, I didn't find most of the things he said (before he melted down at the National Press Club) all that bad, when I heard or read them in fuller context; e.g., "God damn America." I did find some things kind of loony (the AIDS conspiracy theory). We can disagree about that, of course, but I will remind you of the hateful things that all sorts of people say about America, or parts of America, or groups of Americans, every day.

I don't at all agree with your analogy, though. Wife-beating is heinous. It's an entirely different thing from inflammatory speech. And it's not fair just to consider that "Wright spoke of positive things." He also had a long career of doing positive things.

Pfleger I have no opinion on. He sounded like a wannabe shock jock to me in the one clip I heard, but I just can't be be bothered to find out anything about him. I've got no reason to believe that Obama shares any of those attitudes towards Clinton; in fact, he strikes me as doing his level best to be courteous to and about her while she and her supporters grow progressively more unreasonable.

I don't know what the congregation did during Pfleger's sermon that upset you -- was it anything besides laughing and cheering? If that was the extent of it, well, all I can say is, welcome to life with a like-minded crowd of human beings. You ever go to a football game?

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 02:02 AM
I have been reading Michael Yon for years. And the stories do not go untold on conservative sites, Iraqi blogs written by Iraqi's, and Military blogs. Some creep into the WSJ, and even the Washington Post....like the other day...

Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)


And of course FOX news lets a little seep in.

Start with Yon's book and once you are through with that I have a number of really cool stories I can share.

I'm sure the Yon and the rest of the milbloggers have all sorts of stories of individual kindnesses, acts of charity, caring, friends made by soldiers with certain Iraqis, what have you. But, as someone once said, the plural of anecdote is not data.

And the one link that you offer that purports to say anything about the larger picture is to ... an editorial. From the hawks at WaPo.

Uh, okay. You've convinced me.

graz
06-03-2008, 02:04 AM
As for the Catholic priest, even creepier than his ridiculous tirade was the reaction of the good Christians in the congregation.


How can anyone defend his tirade? Or the seeming delight that some of the witnesses took from it. Well I'll try.
He is a man of the cloth and they were worshipers. Those facts as a given make it difficult if not impossible to excuse or justify the behavior.
If you defrock him and consider him a performer who was playing to his audience, you might concede that he was a hit.
Aren't Christians people too? As subject to prejudice and venial behavior as any other group?
If you were to condense his overwrought performance (truth-telling?) down to its essential points - it wouldn't be unique or a precedent.
I won't bother with the link to the same sentiments being expressed on the page (electrons on the screen), or comedians expressing exactly the same caricature of Hillary.
I realize that some are truly offended by the powerful video capture of the event. And I guess that the repulsion mostly stems from the perceived affront to religiosity. Secondly, it ruffles the feathers of Clinton supporters. It certainly reinforces the meme of Hillary as victim of unfair criticism.
I don't have enough fingers to count how many times I have read exactly the same assessment of Hillary's reaction to Obama. When you read on the flat page a characterization of Clinton's sense of entitlement and resentment of Obama - it hardly shocks. I can't prove either of those points definitively, and yet my intuition allows me to speculate that it seems to fit.

breadcrust
06-03-2008, 04:59 AM
David Frum,

There's this thing you're not thinking about when you mourn (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:24:10&out=24:36) how the US has not received wide acclaim for its post-Indonesian-tsunami-sealift: THE IRAQ WAR/OCCUPATION. The US is seen as a global villain right now because of this thing that you cheerlead (cheerleaded?)

Duh.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm sure the Yon and the rest of the milbloggers have all sorts of stories of individual kindnesses, acts of charity, caring, friends made by soldiers with certain Iraqis, what have you. But, as someone once said, the plural of anecdote is not data.

And the one link that you offer that purports to say anything about the larger picture is to ... an editorial. From the hawks at WaPo.

Uh, okay. You've convinced me.

First, your "anecdote" quote seems to much more describe YOUR situation with Abu Graib etc.

Secondly, the WaPo story was hardly suppose to represent the hundreds that are out there as it seems you try to spin...it just happened to be ONE I had JUST read. Finishing with the little "Uh, okay" as if I meant the Wapo post to convince you ... would be as silly an assumption as your reaction to it.

jh in sd
06-03-2008, 12:18 PM
bj, Maybe the wife-beating analogy was over the top, but here are the similarities: abuse and betrayal. Wright abused his power by perverting the Christian messase from and pulpit and betrayed his congregation by doing so. As an athiest, you would not find that objectionable, by as a Christian I find it disgusting.

As the putrid priest mocked and derided Hillary Clinton, (a child of God from the believer's perspective), the congregation cheered him on, and some even gave him a standing ovation. So much for Christian fellowship.

As for the football analogy-who is the contest between at the Trinity Church? Black vs. white seems to be the answer-what a wonderful message to preach in a Christian church!

FYI-I am a Rams fan and immensly enjoy my annual visit to St. Louis!

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 12:33 PM
Pod2 and AEMJeff,

I do not discount Abu Graib nor Haditha, although as the Haditha story has come to fruition it is not the same story the Murtha described nor the original one Time did. And I believe the only reason Murtha did not have to face charges was because of congressional immunity (you left that part out). I believe the final court martial is going on right now and its for not properly investigating the incidient...you know ...down from "cold blooded murder" being spashed across the world highlighted by a Democrat Congressman. Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? I guess that goes out the window when charges are dropped or not-guilty verdicts do not go the way of negative news for our troops and positive news for the LEFT.

However, the whole point of my post which you both continue to try to ignore is the overwhelming attention the left and its media gave and continues to give a handful of negative stories about a couple handfuls of soldiers...while hundreds of positive stories go left untold. I started the thread linking to the Cherny's admission of this. I guess you really don't want to confront the facts nor my questions, but just continue to want to work the negatives. That's fine as it goes to proving my point.

I don't think I ignored your main point at all, Fur, although I was more direct in the second post than in the first. I don't blame either the left or the media for the entirely predictable response to horrific acts committed by men and women wearing the uniform of the U. S. Armed Forces. I blame the people responsible for creating a spectacle that was guaranteed to trigger a firestorm (and rightfully so.) Further while I have no doubt that many good things are happening in Iraq, Man Bites Dog is what gets covered, always. And I think choosing Michael Yon as an exemplary source for a straight view of what's actually happening is probably not going to yield the most balanced picture of events there.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 02:36 PM
First, your "anecdote" quote seems to much more describe YOUR situation with Abu Graib etc.

Secondly, the WaPo story was hardly suppose to represent the hundreds that are out there as it seems you try to spin...it just happened to be ONE I had JUST read. Finishing with the little "Uh, okay" as if I meant the Wapo post to convince you ... would be as silly an assumption as your reaction to it.

I don't think I brought up Abu Ghraib, and I certainly wouldn't offer it as proof, in and of itself, that the overall situation is a disaster. I think it does serve as a partial explanation of why many Iraqis are distrustful of the US presence, and I also think it serves as a symbol of the poor planning and mishandling of the situation by the Bush Administration.

As measures of how bad the big picture is, there are plenty of data -- number of Americans killed or wonded, number of Iraqis killed or wounded, amount of money spent by the US, lack of progress on restoring basic services like electricity, etc., the consensus view among almost everyone in the know that there is little prospect of the occupation ending soon -- if you're interested in looking for them.

You're right that I could have ended my last comment more politely. Sorry about that. However, you did originally suggest that you had lots to offer in the way of success stories that were being underreported, and then you didn't follow through.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 02:59 PM
jh:

bj, Maybe the wife-beating analogy was over the top, but here are the similarities: abuse and betrayal. Wright abused his power by perverting the Christian messase from and pulpit and betrayed his congregation by doing so. As an athiest, you would not find that objectionable, by as a Christian I find it disgusting.

As the putrid priest mocked and derided Hillary Clinton, (a child of God from the believer's perspective), the congregation cheered him on, and some even gave him a standing ovation. So much for Christian fellowship.

As an atheist, I am all too often made aware of discrepancies between the way self-proclaimed Christians act and the way they should, if they were truly following the teachings of Jesus. (This was one of the things that first pushed me away from Christianity, as a matter of fact.) However, different people interpret those teachings in different ways. I don't find Wright's views as nearly at odds with those teachings as I do many other preachers.

I have already noted that I don't find anything admirable in what Pfleger said.

In any case, I think you're making way too much out of these events, and using trying to cast them into a frame of it offending your notion of what it means to be a Christian seems way over the top. People do bad things all the time, and if you're as committed a Christian as you say you are, you ought to be able to find some understanding and forgiveness within your heart. Or so it seems to me, from my understanding of what Jesus taught.

As for the football analogy-who is the contest between at the Trinity Church? Black vs. white seems to be the answer-what a wonderful message to preach in a Christian church!

That is not at all the analogy I was making, and you know it. I was merely pointing out that when a crowd is rooting for the home team, they're liable to get a little silly. If you want to see an example of how it works in the other direction, have a look at the comments section for any post on No Quarter. A good example is this one (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/03/17-s-dakota-county-commissioners-do-not-endorse-the-presumptive-nominee/), where I posted a few comments -- search for "Brendan" and note the responses that I got.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 03:18 PM
And I think choosing Michael Yon as an exemplary source for a straight view of what's actually happening is probably not going to yield the most balanced picture of events there.

You are correct Jeff, but by reading it YOUR picture may become a little more balanced.

The point (which I disagree that you really have approached) is not what the media covers or why, but what if it were balanced ...or better yet what if it was weighted by a fair assessment of reality. I know some want to imagine it is, but it truly is not and Cherny admits it here.

What I really have a hard time understanding is you and yours can talk of balance when a book like Yon's is brought up while I don't hear the same talk when Abu Graib or Haditha is brought up...While the fact is Abu Graib happened almost 5 years ago and directly involved a very small number of soldiers...its been used then and again as an example to be pinned on the whole operation and to characterize much more than that small number of soldiers. That is neither fair or an assesment of reality, yet it is the reality the left side of the media and most of the left WANT portrayed because...well...I think the the explanation is pretty clear...because they don't like the War or George Bush and they prefer failure over any semblance of success there for fear that the War be looked at as a good thing or heaven forbid, George Bush might be associated with that success.

handle
06-03-2008, 03:46 PM
Here's who you are arguing with:

Originally Posted by handle
What about the (I think) obvious national security and economic advantages of moving away from fossil fuels? Or is your "logic" job in the petroleum industry?

Whatfur:
Nope. I work for Haliburton.

Whatfur is putting his mouth where his money is, Provided he is telling the truth. Even if he DOES work for the no-bid war profiteers, according to Wikipedia, they provide support for the petroleum industry. Maybe he's kidding, maybe he's lying or maybe he doesn't know what he is talking about, but given his politics, my guess is he's been making one hell of a lot of money off us by way of Bush Cheney, for Iraq related, no-bid, cost-plus services rendered.
We will never know, so I no longer care what his spin is 'cause I'm pretty sure if Cheney had a blog, it would read like pure whatfur.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 03:56 PM
You're right that I could have ended my last comment more politely. Sorry about that. However, you did originally suggest that you had lots to offer in the way of success stories that were being underreported, and then you didn't follow through.


Oh so I will be unable to find any mention by you of Abu Graib within BH???

And I believe, Mr. Twister, that I said there were hundreds of UNTOLD stories and suggested I could share a couple if you wanted to hear them. Its not about following through or not. Once again...nice try.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 04:05 PM
Here's who you are arguing with:

Originally Posted by handle
What about the (I think) obvious national security and economic advantages of moving away from fossil fuels? Or is your "logic" job in the petroleum industry?

Whatfur:
Nope. I work for Haliburton.



To which I think you responded that you weren't going to bite. Looks like you bit. Maybe when you stop chewing you can come back and actually add something to the conversation.

handle
06-03-2008, 04:15 PM
arentcha gonna refute the wikipedia reference? Jeez, I left that one right out in the open for 'ya!
Halliburton's major business segment is the Energy Services Group (ESG). ESG provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production.
Conversation? no problem! Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, support the troops, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, proud to be an American, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, winning the war, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, fair and balanced, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, liberals! Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, progress, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, IRAN!
I wasn't talking to you anyway. But now you got me 'cause I AM! whoa! you ARE good!
Good bye!

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 04:18 PM
arentcha gonna refute the wikipedia reference? Jeez, I left that one right out in the open for 'ya!
Halliburton's major business segment is the Energy Services Group (ESG). ESG provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production.
Conversation? no problem! Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, support the troops, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, proud to be an American, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, winning the war, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, fair and balanced, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, liberals! Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, progress, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, IRAN!
I wasn't talking to you anyway. But now you got me 'cause I AM! whoa! you ARE good!
Good bye!

LOL.

Be careful Handle or when we are choosing up sides for the Left vs. Right softball game at the BhTv picnic...you will find yourself working the concessions.

handle
06-03-2008, 04:44 PM
LOL.

Be careful Handle or when we are choosing up sides for the Left vs. Right softball game at the BhTv picnic...you will find yourself working the concessions.

damn, you are the best!
Such a clever metaphor! Took me a minute, but downplaying the role of concessions! genius! As such, you can glorify the roles of the players and the merits of your team while, your hand is in the till, raking in cash for as long as the game lasts! And free hot dogs! I wish I was in for real....
Got me again!

Wait, adding this:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, not the McClellan we knew, blah, blah.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 04:51 PM
Oh so I will be unable to find any mention by you of Abu Graib within BH???

And I believe, Mr. Twister, that I said there were hundreds of UNTOLD stories and suggested I could share a couple if you wanted to hear them. Its not about following through or not. Once again...nice try.

In case you have forgotten, I will remind you that I asked, if these stories are untold, how do you know about them, and what are they?

You said there were hundreds of them and you offered to share them. So far you have offered one link: to an editorial from a known group of hawks.

You have also recommended a book by a former Special Forces guy who has spent the last few years as an embed, which I think pretty well sums up his perspective. I'm not saying it's worthless, I'm just saying, consider the source. Recall also that when embedded reporters tell disheartening stories, they are quickly dismissed by the pro-war crowd as fairly meaningless as to the big picture, since embedded reporters only have a "soda straw" view of events.

If you want to keep ducking my original two questions, fine. If you want to resort to your usual pattern of namecalling and trying to turn the questions back on the questioner, fine. You're not, however, doing anything to substantiate your original claim.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 04:57 PM
Some balance. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/02/iraqi_mayor_thanks_american_tr.html)

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 05:19 PM
The point (which I disagree that you really have approached) is not what the media covers or why, but what if it were balanced ...or better yet what if it was weighted by a fair assessment of reality.

I don't grant the validity of the hypothetical. Coverage of something with the vast scope of our involvement in Iraq is by definition based on tiny samples, most of which are self-selected by habit and circumstance. The idea of an objective God's-eye view is a fantasy. There are multiple, competing views represented in the actual coverage, some of which bear an ideological imprimatur, but there are multiple ideologies represented. Even arguing for proportionality, that is, a rough balance between number of events of type X (say Iraqi mayors lauding the Americans) and the number of pieces covering events of type X, compared to events of type "Y" (whatever other type of story you care to name) leads to a basic impossiblity. Who is to say what the "correct" proportions are? There's no way to even produce a believable standard.

What I object to is the characterization of mainstream coverage as a monolithically left phenomenon. "MSM" is an epithet on both the left and the right. Is the coverage by, say the NYT or WP unbiased? That's a meaningless proposition. The Post is somewhat more right than the Times and both are somewhere between the extremes. Neither is particularly ideological, both are judged by partisans for not being as far right (or left) as the partisans are themselves. I note the interesting, relatively recent occurrences of people flatly calling Fox News "liberal." It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

The best possible model - distinct from the "perfect" model - is the current one. Lots of people working for lots of organizations all pursuing their own agendas and trying to one-up everybody else in the arena. I don't know how we improve on that, and setting up hypotheticals that assume impossibilities doesn't seem, to me, to really add anything useful to the debate.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 05:24 PM
Whatfur:

Sounds like a good example, or more precisely, the possibility of a good example. I'd call it a lead for a reporter and not a report. I'd like to see verification of the source of the email, for one thing. If the email can be shown to be true, I'd also like some context about the city, to see if the mayor's view is shared by others who live there.

To see where I'm coming from, imagine the following. I claim that things are getting worse in Iraq. To support this, I give you a link to a blog post. The post consists of one sentence from the blogger saying, "Stories like these atrocities are not getting out," followed by a block of indented text, which is presented as an email, claimed to have been forwarded by a friend who got it from a friend who got it from an Iraq official. that describes American soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians.

Would you accept that?

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 07:03 PM
Follow the link provided in this post (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/198378.php) to read a TPMCafe Book Club discussion about Andrei's new book. Participants in addition to Andrei will include:

Michael Tomasky of The Guardian, James Traub, a contributing writer at The New York Times Magazine, Lawrence Kaplan, editor of World Affairs, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, and Michael Barone, a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report will be blogging about the book.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 07:20 PM
Whatfur:

Sounds like a good example, .... that describes American soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians.

Would you accept that?

No, but then that might be a difference between you and I (left and right??) when I read something about "American soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians" I immediately conclude it is probably BS, I then watch the MSM go through its gyrations about it, then I read somewhere on a back page that the story WAS BS, and then I watch for the MSM retraction which never comes as they have move on to the next story of gloom, doom, disaster, and dispair.

Well, untill recently, as it has been documented (even by Tim Russert) that because the news in Iraq recently is so good that the number of Iraq stories has decreased AMAAAAzinlgy because...well...not enough bad.

This story I provided is entirely true and I find it funny (actually not haha funny) although not surprising that you would not have heard of it. Feel free to do your own googling on it though.

Did you hear about the soldier the other day who received the Medal of Honor posthumously? Pretty amazing lad, classic giving of oneself.

Have you heard anything about the relative peace in Iraq the last month?
Have you heard anything about how Al Queda in Iraq is pretty much done, reeling, and having committee meetings on how they failed.

Just wondering.

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 07:25 PM
Have you heard anything about the relative peace in Iraq the last month?
Have you heard anything about how Al Queda in Iraq is pretty much done, reeling, and having committee meetings on how they failed.


Believe it or not I heard both stories on NPR.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 07:35 PM
I don't grant the validity of the hypothetical.
...
I don't know how we improve on that, and setting up hypotheticals that assume impossibilities doesn't seem, to me, to really add anything useful to the debate.

Of course you are happy with the current set up as it is well documented to be center-left. All the major players are still center left if not just plain left. Its not balanced...deny it all you want. Where do you place the BBC?

In any case..hmmm..how does one improve it. Well, say if you have a story about a young soldier who throws himself on a granade to save his fellow soldiers and get the Medal of Honor (Yes the highest honor given). You don't mention it 20 minutes into your broadcast. Or if you have been reporting on the death count like a basketball score for 5 years, don't stop like NBC has this last month when it went down to its lowest point since the war began. Little things like that.

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 07:56 PM
Of course you are happy with the current set up as it is well documented to be center-left. All the major players are still center left if not just plain left. Its not balanced...deny it all you want. Where do you place the BBC?

In any case..hmmm..how does one improve it. Well, say if you have a story about a young soldier who throws himself on a granade to save his fellow soldiers and get the Medal of Honor (Yes the highest honor given). You don't mention it 20 minutes into your broadcast. Or if you have been reporting on the death count like a basketball score for 5 years, don't stop like NBC has this last month when it went down to its lowest point since the war began. Little things like that.

One place where we disagree, is that I'm not arguing outcomes, I'm arguing process - which to my way of thinking is infinitely more important. Whether BBC, or Newscorp are left or right is immaterial to me. Our subjective judgments of either the individual or the collective biases of press will never line up - we start from different sets of assumptions. That's fine.

I remember the coverage that the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe received at the time it was occurring. I hoped that the narrative of events in say, Poland, would continue - I really wanted to see the process by which liberal democracy took hold, and I wanted to know how the lives of citizens were going to change as a result of that process. In the five years following those events, I doubt there were as many relevant news stories as there were in any given week during the actual events. Bias? Yup. But not a political bias. Good news is rarely "News." Would I prefer things were different? Of course I would - but I can't think of a process by which that difference could be effected. I can think of a thousand ways in which coverage might be improved. I can't think of a credible way to guarantee that outcome.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 08:06 PM
Whatfur:

No, but then that might be a difference between you and I (left and right??) when I read something about "American soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians" I immediately conclude it is probably BS, I then watch the MSM go through its gyrations about it, then I read somewhere on a back page that the story WAS BS, and then I watch for the MSM retraction which never comes as they have move on to the next story of gloom, doom, disaster, and dispair.

Sounds like you're generalizing from one or two instances. Perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence if the problem is more than that.

This story I provided is entirely true ...

How do you know this? Show me some independent corroboration.

... and I find it funny (actually not haha funny) although not surprising that you would not have heard of it. Feel free to do your own googling on it though.

Actually, I did Google the story right after you first posted the link. What I saw was the echo chamber in high gear -- a bunch of rightwing blogs linking to each other and to the post that you linked to, all accepting the "email from the mayor" without question.

Did you hear about the soldier the other day who received the Medal of Honor posthumously? Pretty amazing lad, classic giving of oneself.

As I said earlier, I do not deny that individual acts of heroism happen in a war zone. But how does this prove the main point that you've been claiming, that the war is going better? Seems to me that if live grenades are rolling around, that says the situation is still pretty grim. If you want to let one anecdote stand in for real data, I mean.

Have you heard anything about the relative peace in Iraq the last month?
Have you heard anything about how Al Queda in Iraq is pretty much done, reeling, and having committee meetings on how they failed.

Yes. Even in the MSM, believe it or not. I believe I've seen such reporting in the NYT, Slate, and the WaPo in recent days, just to name three.

This does not change my impression that the overall situation is still a disaster, though. I will grant that it's not as bad as it used to be, but that's all. Here's a sampling (http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSANW25798920080602) of one half of one day's events that makes me feel that way.

I'll also note that AQI is hardly the only troublemaking group in the area.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 08:12 PM
Whatfur:

How do you know this? Show me some independent corroboration.



Who vetted Haditha for Time Magazine?
Who vetted the military docs for Dan Rather and CBS news.
Who vetted Scott Beauchamp for TNR.

Define independant corroboration.

jh in sd
06-03-2008, 08:59 PM
bj, I don't recall Rev. Wright asking for forgiveness. He is unrepentant.

You are being inconsistant. You stated in a previous post that you wish more Christians would hold others of the faith accountable for un-Christian behaviour, but when I did that you criticize me for it. If you think that mean-spiritedness in the pulpit is acceptable, that you are out of touch.

The football analogy-you handed that one to me gift-wrapped.

Senator Obama was forced to leave his church because of Rev. Wright's arrogance. It must have been a horrible and painful experience for him and for his family. I feel compassion for him, but not for the church that painted him into a corner.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 09:11 PM
Who vetted Haditha for Time Magazine?
Who vetted the military docs for Dan Rather and CBS news.
Who vetted Scott Beauchamp for TNR.

Define independant corroboration.

What's this, about the ninth time on this page alone that you've ducked a direct question? Can't you ever just acknowledge a valid point made by someone else, rather than constantly falling back on "I'm rubber and you're glue?" Must you always be obsessed with "winning?"

I think I've wasted enough time with you on this topic, Whatfur. Before I give you what will undoubtedly be a childish last word, I'll add this thought:

I am unsurprised by your final line, given your blind acceptance of an unsourced blog post. I'll tell you this much, though. You'll have better luck learning the meaning independent corroboration (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=independent+corroboration) if you start by learning how to spell it.

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 09:13 PM
Believe it or not I heard both stories on NPR.

I believe it...I would bet they included a whole bunch of "balancing" though as they reported it. ;o)

Whatfur
06-03-2008, 09:18 PM
What's this, about the ninth time on this page alone that you've ducked a direct question? Can't you ever just acknowledge a valid point made by someone else, rather than constantly falling back on "I'm rubber and you're glue?" Must you always be obsessed with "winning?"

I think I've wasted enough time with you on this topic, Whatfur. Before I give you what will undoubtedly be a childish last word, I'll add this thought:

I am unsurprised by your final line, given your blind acceptance of an unsourced blog post. I'll tell you this much, though. You'll have better luck learning the meaning independent corroboration (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=independent+corroboration) if you start by learning how to spell it.

What's this about the ninth time on this page alone that you have asked others to do your work for you. Why am I not surprised that you choose not to believe that our soldiers could possibly have elicited such a comment and need to stick your hand into the wound and your fingers in the nail holes before you would.

TwinSwords
06-04-2008, 12:23 AM
What's this about the ninth time on this page alone that you have asked others to do your work for you. Why am I not surprised that you choose not to believe that our soldiers could possibly have elicited such a comment and need to stick your hand into the wound and your fingers in the nail holes before you would.

He never said he could not believe the soldiers could have elicited such praise. He's just considering the source: the fever swamp of the unhinged right. Y'all don't have the best track record, ya know.

You cite Haditha, but clearly atrocities were committed at Haditha.

You cite Beauchamp, but he was largely exonerated. If I recall, the only mistake he made was the location of the disfigured woman (it was Kuwait, not Iraq.)

Besides, isn't it kind of strange for you to cite three stories you think were botched (Dan Rather, Haditha, and Beauchamp) as support for your mayoral email story? It's almost as if you are arguing that other people have made mistakes, so no one can hold you or the fever swamp to any standards.

Whatfur
06-04-2008, 08:41 AM
He never said he could not believe the soldiers could have elicited such praise. He's just considering the source:
...
It's almost as if you are arguing that other people have made mistakes, so no one can hold you or the fever swamp to any standards.

I provided a link to the "American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/02/iraqi_mayor_thanks_american_tr.html)" which leans right but I believe holds a pretty solid reputation. Its kind of an ironic disadvantage you put me in if I am arguing the fact that the MSM is not carrying positive stories about our troops, yet when I provide an example, you attempt to tear its validity apart because...well...its not in the MSM. I suppose Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185000,00.html) or one of the most linked to military blogs, The Mudville Gazette (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/004167.html), won't work either. (Once again doing Brendan's work) Sorry, I don't have the Mayor's email address.

In any case, feel free not to believe it as I wouldn't want it to loosen your hard, fast, cocooned thinking, and steadfast hopes for failure in Iraq.

Lastly, my use of the CBS, Time, and TNR examples was obviously not for the reason you twist it to, but to also show the irony in relying on MSM sources for validation of the truth. To quote YOU..."Y'all don't have the best track record, ya know." And speaking of and for the record, Beauchamp was hardly cleared nor his lies reduced to just the location...nice try, and Haditha? Yes, there are atrocities in War and thankfully the additional atrocity of using a trumped up story to prosecute Marines for protecting themselves and doing their jobs was not added to it.

Big Wayne, In case you were still hanging around here are some of those stick people I once said I would not draw for you... but I have found a whole slew of your cohort's who appreciate my art, so I succumbed.

TwinSwords
06-04-2008, 10:27 AM
I provided a link to the "American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/02/iraqi_mayor_thanks_american_tr.html)" which leans right but I believe holds a pretty solid reputation. Its kind of an ironic disadvantage you put me in if I am arguing the fact that the MSM is not carrying positive stories about our troops, yet when I provide an example, you attempt to tear its validity apart because...well...its not in the MSM. I suppose Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185000,00.html) or one of the most linked to military blogs, The Mudville Gazette (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/004167.html), won't work either. (Once again doing Brendan's work) Sorry, I don't have the Mayor's email address.
Why is the Brendan's work? You're the one who wants people to believe the story. If you want so badly for people to believe it, it seems to me it's your job to provide the evidence, not Brendan's.


In any case, feel free not to believe it as I wouldn't want it to loosen your hard, fast, cocooned thinking, and steadfast hopes for failure in Iraq.
This is just slander. When the pitcher gives up 73 runs in the first 4 innings of the game, the fans still hope for a win but they also get pretty pissed at the pitcher. To put it more simply: Bush is a failure and it makes a lot of us mad, the damage he has done to our reputation. Turning justified criticism of bad performance into "steadfast hope for failure" is neither justified, nor fair, nor logically defensible.

Just so we're clear, is it your position that Bush's performance and judgement these past 7 years has been exemplery and without blemish? How would you rate him on a scale of 1 to 10? If you rate him anything less than a 10, does that mean you hate America and want the troops to suffer?



Lastly, my use of the CBS, Time, and TNR examples was obviously not for the reason you twist it to, but to also show the irony in relying on MSM sources for validation of the truth.
Gotcha.



To quote YOU..."Y'all don't have the best track record, ya know."
Quoting me is fine. But be aware that using "y'all" to lump me together with the MSM is inaccurate. We have no more truck with the MSM than we do with NRO. Remember: The media as liberal beast is your meme, not ours, and we don't accept it for a minute.



And speaking of and for the record, Beauchamp was hardly cleared nor his lies reduced to just the location...nice try
Jonathan Chait said it best (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/325): The fever swamp invested so much time and energy trumping up their charges against Beauchamp that when he was exonerated completely, they simply refused to face reality. Sure, I know, you guys will never accept any explanation other than total mendacity combined with a desire to lose the war. (For a while you even thought TNR had invented the soldier; when he turned out to be real, you simply transfered your hatred for the anonymous TNR writer to Beauchamp himself.)

Have you ever read Franklin Foer's account of TNR's investigation (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32&p=1) into the Beauchamp affair? It would not be worth your time, as it would not advance any far-right narratives about Democrats hating the troops.

Besides a single trivial error, Beauchamp's greatest sin may be "overwriting." (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/325?in=00:14:52&out=00:17:40)

Let's face it: Beauchamp became a target for personal destruction because he said stuff that the far-right wished he didn't.



and Haditha? Yes, there are atrocities in War and thankfully the additional atrocity of using a trumped up story to prosecute Marines for protecting themselves and doing their jobs was not added to it.
So, you are admitting there were atrocities at Haditha? If so, then what exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the media should not report news you don't approve of during war time?

Whatfur
06-04-2008, 02:10 PM
Why is the Brendan's work? You're the one who wants people to believe the story. If you want so badly for people to believe it, it seems to me it's your job to provide the evidence, not Brendan's.


No. I could care less if you or Brendan believe.


This is just slander. When the pitcher gives up 73 runs in the first 4 innings of the game, the fans still hope for a win but they also get pretty pissed at the pitcher. To put it more simply: Bush is a failure and it makes a lot of us mad, the damage he has done to our reputation. Turning justified criticism of bad performance into "steadfast hope for failure" is neither justified, nor fair, nor logically defensible.


Unfortunately all too often as you and yours "piss" on Bush you splatter all over the troops. But I am glad you are behind the current effort there and understand that it would be as stupid as you portray Bush to be to cut and run at this point. Heck, Obama may even be able to claim the Surge his own.


Just so we're clear, is it your position that Bush's performance and judgement these past 7 years has been exemplery and without blemish? How would you rate him on a scale of 1 to 10? If you rate him anything less than a 10, does that mean you hate America and want the troops to suffer?


When has being clear ever been important to you? I certainly see no evidence of that in your previous twisting of my comments.


Quoting me is fine. But be aware that using "y'all" to lump me together with the MSM is inaccurate.


Ohhh, of course. Its ok for you to align me to a group but not ok for me to align you with one. That 's fair. Almost as fair as you quoting a couple lefties, one whose job was in jeopardy because of it...as your Beauchamp sources.


So, you are admitting there were atrocities at Haditha? If so, then what exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the media should not report news you don't approve of during war time?

No I believe my words were "Yes...there are atrocities in War". I make no such admission about Haditha. Nice try though.

The blind, hypocrisy and double-standard the lefties here work with is hilarious at times.

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 02:20 PM
No. I could care less if you or Brendan believe.

This might be the most blatantly contradictory-with-the-evidence statement you have yet made.

TwinSwords
06-04-2008, 02:46 PM
You have managed to respond in detail to my post while avoiding any real answers to any of the essential points. That's fine. We both know what it means.

No. I could care less if you or Brendan believe.
OK, but don't lose sight of the point. On this forum you regularly assign people homework, expecting them to research the answers to your questions. If you want to make an assertion, the burden is on you to back it up. It's not "Brendan's homework" to find evidence supporting your claims. If you don't care enough about your own claims to support them, that's fine with me. Just be clear about who's responsible for doing what. I think you are also aware, by now, that most people who aren't right wing extremists will not blindly accept the raving lunacy you find on Ace of Spades or Malkin or Powerline or any other crackpot web site.



Unfortunately all too often as you and yours "piss" on Bush you splatter all over the troops.
Pure bullshit. You and your kind love to conflate criticism of the president or the Republican Party with pissing on the troops, but they're obviously not the same thing. Being mad at the pitcher who lost the game is not the same as hating baseball, or sports. If I yell at the pitcher who lost the game, I'm not pissing on the grave of Hank Aaron.



But I am glad you are behind the current effort there and understand that it would be as stupid as you portray Bush to be to cut and run at this point. Heck, Obama may even be able to claim the Surge his own.
Let's put it this way: Bush got sent to the showers after giving up 73 runs in four innings. If by some miracle, the team still manages to pull out a win, it's not going to vindicate Bush. It's going to vindicate his successors, and the people who are responsible for the victory. That won't be Bush. Bush is responsible for the disaster. Other heroic people will be responsible for cleaning it up.




Ohhh, of course. Its ok for you to align me to a group but not ok for me to align you with one. That 's fair.
You can align me with groups. I just ask that you do so accurately. Here are some groups you can align me with: the Democrats, liberals, the left-wing blogosphere, people who love America, people who love our troops, people who want to protect and defend the American way of life and our Constitution, people who value human rights and civil rights.

But not the MSM.



Almost as fair as you quoting a couple lefties, one whose job was in jeopardy because of it...as your Beauchamp sources.
Your reasoning is circular, and I don't think you even know it. You're stuck in a loop that makes it impossible for you to ever learn anything new. That's how you remain stuck on Bush in year 8 of the dystopia. I hope this cognitive dysfunction doesn't extend to areas of your life outside of politics.



No I believe my words were "Yes...there are atrocities in War". I make no such admission about Haditha. Nice try though.
Well, okay, you can retract your statement, but "yes" sure sounds like agreement in the form of English I speak.

We could go around and around arguing about the details of what really happened. I'm sure for every well-established fact from Haditha, you have a counterpoint from Malkin saying that it never happened. I'm not interested in playing these games with you. If the atrocities happened, they should be exposed and punished. I would hope you agree. If they didn't happen, the media should be excoriated and compelled to apologize.

You remind me of 1LT Calley of the My Lai Massacre. The facts of that case were pretty clear, but still, an overwhelming majority (78%) of Americans wanted all charges against him to be dropped. Point being, a lot of people don't mind attrocities and war crimes. They just hate "the enemy" totally and if it includes cold blooded murder of children, they are ok with it.

I think there are far fewer of your kind today than there were in 1968, but the right wing blogosphere is filled with people who will defend even the worst crimes.

Are you one of them? How do you feel about 1LT Calley's crimes? Should he have been prosecuted, or was he a patriot just doing his job?

Whatfur
06-04-2008, 03:37 PM
You have managed to respond in detail to my post

Thank you, I am glad you appreciate it.

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 04:27 PM
<sarcasm>

Classy, Whatfur. Really classy.

</sarcasm>

pod2
06-05-2008, 02:12 AM
Pod2 and AEMJeff,

I do not discount Abu Graib nor Haditha, although as the Haditha story has come to fruition it is not the same story the Murtha described nor the original one Time did. And I believe the only reason Murtha did not have to face charges was because of congressional immunity (you left that part out). I believe the final court martial is going on right now and its for not properly investigating the incidient...you know ...down from "cold blooded murder" being spashed across the world highlighted by a Democrat Congressman. Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? I guess that goes out the window when charges are dropped or not-guilty verdicts do not go the way of negative news for our troops and positive news for the LEFT.

However, the whole point of my post which you both continue to try to ignore is the overwhelming attention the left and its media gave and continues to give a handful of negative stories about a couple handfuls of soldiers...while hundreds of positive stories go left untold. I started the thread linking to the Cherny's admission of this. I guess you really don't want to confront the facts nor my questions, but just continue to want to work the negatives. That's fine as it goes to proving my point.

I guess I was mostly addressing the question of winning 'hearts and minds.'

In this question, it matters that Iraqis see images of torture at Abu Ghraib, hear stories of how soldiers raped an Iraqi woman and then covered up atrocities by executing a group of women and children. It matters that Iraqis see that the reconstruction efforts are being monopolized by American corporations that cannot get the job done. KBR and Bechtel, though they have received millions of dollars in contracts, are not able to rehabilitate the Iraqi power/water/telecom grid, and there are thousands of unemployed Iraqis who are itching to take on these tasks if they had similar funding from the Pentagon or the State Dept.

Another fundamental misunderstanding has to do with 'reporting the good news' along with the bad. This complaint reveals a very important bias in analysis. In domestic news reporting, the fact that a man or an organization kills, rips off, or hurts someone is news. When someone does their job to educate kids, rebuild a bridge, or make contacts in a local community does not usually make the front page. If I were to go to work every day virtuously rebuilding a hospital or school in New Orleans, this would not rate a single local, let alone international news story. When I decide to brutally torture a resident of New Orleans until they are dead, and there is a picture documenting such deadly torture, the local, national, and international media tend to become more interested. When I protest that work in New Orleans is mostly about rebuilding the city, and why are we focusing on the way a few bad apples are torturing, killing, and possibly raping New Orleans residents, this is dismissed as fundamentally ridiculous.

This dismissal effect is magnified several times when it comes to occupation.
Rebuilding something that you have destroyed by cruise missiles rates several orders of magnitudes less than any incidents of torture or summary executions. The fact that the vast majority of marines are motivated to help Iraqis achieve a higher standard of living is completely overshadowed by the fact that some assholes are executing or torturing people.

The fact that Jeremiah Wright's church is improving the lives of a vast number of Chicago residents is presently overshadowed by a few excerpts of sermons and press conferences. Why is it so appalling that torture, extrajudicial killing, and exploitation (granting no-bid contracts to US companies to do work that Iraqi companies could do) would get covered in place of the good work that the military does every day. I do freaking extraordinary work every day in my classroom, but I would not be surprised and appalled if the Daily Post decided to ONLY run a story about the ONE DAY I decided to lock a kid in a closet and scream Portuguese obscenities at him.

The media reports stories of torture, violence, corruption, and abuse. The media generally neglects stories about normal reconstruction, education, healing, etc.

Being upset about the fact that Iraq coverage focuses on the fact that a massive car bomb went off in Kerbala instead of the fact that US troops helped to open a school in Mosul just reflects the facts of what news is.
Helping a grandmother across an intersection is not news.

Blowing up the bus stop across from grandma is news.
Torturing members of grandma's family is news.
Mass executions of grandma's family and neighbors is news.
Broad unemployment and growing paranoia and radicalism of grandma's clan is news.

Whatfur
06-05-2008, 08:39 AM
I guess I was mostly addressing the question of winning 'hearts and minds.'
....
Blowing up the bus stop across from grandma is news.
Torturing members of grandma's family is news.
Mass executions of grandma's family and neighbors is news.
Broad unemployment and growing paranoia and radicalism of grandma's clan is news.

Ahhh pod2, you have now hit upon the real issue here, like Cherny (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:28:35&out=00:29:20) you are admitting that the news you are being fed does not cover the gambit of truth. It covers the gambit of bad news while mostly ignoring the good leaving people actually...can I say, ignorant of positive things happening. Maybe not only ignorant but tainted by the fact that they are presented day in and day out with news carrying a negative slant. Maybe not only ignorant and tainted, but almost defiant in their disbelief when a positive story is presented to them. Hmmm? Sounds a little familiar.

Now couldn't one also say that if a person who also was also fed all of the negative news but augmented it by spending considerable amount of time on military blog sites, blog sites of Iraqi nationals, blog sites of Iraqi's in Iraq, blog sites of people like Yon, as well as...do I dare say, conservative sites that did not always present just the negative news but also presented the positive news and stories they knew would not be picked up by the MSM...couldn't one say that that person might know a little more about the WHOLE truth over there??? Matter of fact, might not that person be able to gleen a little more understanding of the true hearts and minds of the majority of Iraqi's?

Just wondering...

handle
06-05-2008, 02:38 PM
In any case, feel free not to believe it as I wouldn't want it to loosen your hard, fast, cocooned thinking, and steadfast hopes for failure in Iraq.


Jeez what fur
You cheerlead for a "war" that from a strictly military standpoint is as close to a no-win scenario as we can get.
There's no front, your flank is everywhere, and no clear enemy concentrations. How many generals have to speak out before you get it?

How many occupations throughout history, have gone well for the occupiers?
With the exception of the profiteers, such as you purport to being, very few.

You think it's advisable to relegate our beautiful and unprecedented fighting men and women to the role of third world police? Yes they are doing a great job. And what do they get? Put in a position of being stained politically by a rag tag enemy that could turn up anywhere. Why don't we hear about the good stuff you keep harping about? Because nobody wants to see a 19 year old kid jump on a grenade, even if it's to save his buddies, or buy you a swimming pool.

I get your attitude whut, and I know I waste my text on you, but in case anybody else cares, the whutster is in this to win it and you can't reason with an arrogant blowhard. He's just here to debate the idea that he is right, and you don't know what you are talking about. That's what makes him soooo much fun, that premise is about as weak as you could come up with, and he claims to be a logical guy.

Seriously whut, I like you and I like this forum 'cause among other things,it shines the light of day on how guys like you will believe anything to keep a good thing going. And you think you are just fine. Hell, you think you are gods own logical debater. A master debater you may be, but I think most of us see you as devils advocate.
Don't do what you always do and put me in the lefty pigeon hole. I figure Obama & Co. will probably get us in the same shit but for "humanitarian reasons". I DON'T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS AND MY KIDS SPENT ON CLEANING UP THIRD WORLD MESSES. Especially ones we created.
Of course if whut wants to cut me a check.... KIDDING!!!!

pod2
06-05-2008, 09:20 PM
Ahhh pod2, you have now hit upon the real issue here, like Cherny (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11532?in=00:28:35&out=00:29:20) you are admitting that the news you are being fed does not cover the gambit of truth. It covers the gambit of bad news while mostly ignoring the good leaving people actually...can I say, ignorant of positive things happening. Maybe not only ignorant but tainted by the fact that they are presented day in and day out with news carrying a negative slant. Maybe not only ignorant and tainted, but almost defiant in their disbelief when a positive story is presented to them. Hmmm? Sounds a little familiar.

Now couldn't one also say that if a person who also was also fed all of the negative news but augmented it by spending considerable amount of time on military blog sites, blog sites of Iraqi nationals, blog sites of Iraqi's in Iraq, blog sites of people like Yon, as well as...do I dare say, conservative sites that did not always present just the negative news but also presented the positive news and stories they knew would not be picked up by the MSM...couldn't one say that that person might know a little more about the WHOLE truth over there??? Matter of fact, might not that person be able to gleen a little more understanding of the true hearts and minds of the majority of Iraqi's?

Just wondering...

First of all, I have to say that I like the idea of a 'gambit' of truth.

I know I don't have the faintest understanding of the true heart and mind of even a single Iraqi, let alone those of a roomful or a minority faction or 'the majority' of Iraqis. Since I also don't know much about your understanding of their hearts and minds, all I can do is kind of wonder about it and maybe ask that you share some of the other parts of the 'gambit' that are missing from the picture.

I would wonder what you would predict poll numbers would indicate about when Iraqis would prefer the occupation end and whether they see the occupation as provoking or preventing violence. I know these sentiments are mostly absent from MSM discussion, but I applaud you for bringing them up.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 10:04 PM
Polling in Iraq, like must counties that have been beneath the boot of a merciless dictator is really not very reliable, as the inhabitants of such a country are programmed to tell you what they think you wish to hear; their lives depended on getting it right. It will probably take at least one to two generations to break that habit and is dependent upon how each subsequent generation feels in expressing an honest opinion safely.

graz
06-05-2008, 10:27 PM
Polling in Iraq, like must counties that have been beneath the boot of a merciless dictator is really not very reliable, as the inhabitants of such a country are programmed to tell you what they think you wish to hear; their lives depended on getting it right. It will probably take at least one to two generations to break that habit and is dependent upon how each subsequent generation feels in expressing an honest opinion safely.

Thankfully, John McCain has every intention of allowing us to test your theory.
Their responses could run the gamut from we luv you to get the f%$^ out. But we should err on the side of occupation in your mind - right?

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 10:54 PM
Yep that's it. I say kill them all and let Allah sort them out. At least he may be able to discern the truth of their responses. I sort of relay on the evidence that passes before my eyes.

Whatfur
06-06-2008, 08:24 AM
Thankfully, John McCain has every intention of allowing us to test your theory.
Their responses could run the gamut from we luv you to get the f%$^ out. But we should err on the side of occupation in your mind - right?


Actually I think we should err on the side of letting them decide. There are always polls running around Iraq with the "luv"/hate relationship going and of course when asked if they want US out of their response is going to be yes. We have seen the media here jump on those numbers for quite some time. However, unless you are polling Al Queda or the insurgents, most want us to leave when they feel they are secure and that their government is secure.

We seem to be closer to that than we ever have been. Because we are closer, and because our enemies in Iraq see their failure in continuing to stir up security issues they have started (hmmmm? coincidently just like graz here) to try and stir up negative opinion about the occupation with rumors flying about dozens of permanent bases etc.

Currently we are there at the request of the Iraqi government and in the end it is in our interest and in the interest of Iraq and its people to leave a stable situation behind. We will never get to a point where everyone in Iraq thanks us, these are proud people who do not like the thought that it took outsiders to liberate them from Saddam, and to then protect them from foreign insurgents and factions within looking to gain or retain power.

Whatfur
06-06-2008, 02:25 PM
... I know these sentiments are mostly absent from MSM discussion, but I applaud you for bringing them up.

A tidbit (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDljNjM3NDgwMjcwNDY5MzdlMGFiMzA4NDZlY2IxMTc=).

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 02:36 PM
That's a good link; I hadn't seen it before.

handle
06-06-2008, 06:27 PM
Actually I think we should err on the side of letting them decide. There are always polls running around Iraq with the "luv"/hate relationship going and of course when asked if they want US out of their response is going to be yes. We have seen the media here jump on those numbers for quite some time. However, unless you are polling Al Queda or the insurgents, most want us to leave when they feel they are secure and that their government is secure.

We seem to be closer to that than we ever have been. Because we are closer, and because our enemies in Iraq see their failure in continuing to stir up security issues they have started (hmmmm? coincidently just like graz here) to try and stir up negative opinion about the occupation with rumors flying about dozens of permanent bases etc.

Currently we are there at the request of the Iraqi government and in the end it is in our interest and in the interest of Iraq and its people to leave a stable situation behind. We will never get to a point where everyone in Iraq thanks us, these are proud people who do not like the thought that it took outsiders to liberate them from Saddam, and to then protect them from foreign insurgents and factions within looking to gain or retain power.

Dijoo get all misty writing that? ya know what I say to someone on my watch who's project is over 4 years late, and roughly 10,000 percent over budget? Just before I show them the door, I yell at 'em REAL loud, because they PISSED ME OFF. And if they start yammering about how they need MORE time and MORE money, well, let's just say god help them.
DON'T LOOK NOW, BUT THE SITUATION HASN'T BEEN REAL STABLE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS!
We are repeating history and going bankrupt doing it. Since I'm paying, and you are receiving, that makes me one of the bosses, so now might be a good time to start shredding the docs....

pod2
06-08-2008, 02:25 AM
Polling in Iraq, like must counties that have been beneath the boot of a merciless dictator is really not very reliable, as the inhabitants of such a country are programmed to tell you what they think you wish to hear; their lives depended on getting it right. It will probably take at least one to two generations to break that habit and is dependent upon how each subsequent generation feels in expressing an honest opinion safely.

I completely agree.

My first guess would be that poll numbers would skew unrealistically toward approval for whichever ruling faction happened to be in power. Thus, I would expect that any results about supporting the US occupation would vastly overestimate Iraqi consent. However, the dynamics could well be much more complex than this, and it might be possible that they could skew in the other direction as well, though I would be curious to hear why that would be.

TwinSwords
08-21-2009, 07:52 PM
You remind me of 1LT Calley of the My Lai Massacre. The facts of that case were pretty clear, but still, an overwhelming majority (78%) of Americans wanted all charges against him to be dropped. Point being, a lot of people don't mind attrocities and war crimes. They just hate "the enemy" totally and if it includes cold blooded murder of children, they are ok with it.

I think there are far fewer of your kind today than there were in 1968, but the right wing blogosphere is filled with people who will defend even the worst crimes.

Are you one of them? How do you feel about 1LT Calley's crimes? Should he have been prosecuted, or was he a patriot just doing his job?

1LT Calley apologizes, after all these years. (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/813820.html)