Artfully told, pointedly precise.
Key observation:
"In the beginning the left went along with Bush, but the minute things began to lag in Iraq, they deserted him in a flash. At first glance the reason was political but on a deeper (and I believe more important) level the reason was psychological. The left was in a rush to reclaim its lost idealism (the "it's about oil" nonsense was but an obvious example of this), to preserve its disintegrating sense of self. Of course the big loser in all this is the truth."
Artfully told, pointedly precise and ignorant of history. The left went along with Bush until things went sour in Iraq? Not unless one, like Bush, dismissed the massing in the streets prior to invading Iraq as " a focus group."
ReplyDeleteBlah blah, woof woof.
ReplyDeleteWho and what was the driving force behind those events?
Are those the people with whom YOU want be associated with?
Do you think those groups were "mainstream"?
I'm not sure who counts as "the left," but a lot of people supported our efforts in Afghanistan yet had serious reservations or outright negatives about Iraq from the start.
ReplyDeleteThat opposition (not the Internet) is what launched Howard Dean. In other words, it was a significant force even in the teeth of pro-war momentum.
Although not a Dean guy, I was not a fan of going into Iraq when and how we did.
The "left" as represented in Congress surely went along for the ride, and pissed off a lot of people in the process.
"The 'left' as represented in Congress surely went along for the ride, and pissed off a lot of people in the process."
ReplyDeleteWhich people? The ones "massing in the streets" that Roch ralked about?
Well, maybe, but they certainly pissed off the people who raised $40 million in small donations for Dean in a matter of months, and me.
ReplyDeleteBush had and should have had a lot of good will after 9/11 and Afghanistan. He bet a lot of it on Iraq. That bet has not gone well for him, or for our country.
Ed, this is similar to the discussion we had a while back about the public holding the media accountable.
ReplyDeleteIf opposition to the war launched Dean, then opposition to Dean within the party launched Kerry. We all know how Kerry changed his mind. He was most certainly not alone. Simon nailed the reasons why that happened. It lead directly to the Plame Game nonsense, which some of the players on the left are STILL trying to use.
It is this type of thing Simon is talking about, which Roch fails to acknowlege.
If I was still a Dem/Lib and opposed to the war, I would be embarrassed to associate myself with ANSWER, NION, Code Pink, and a whole lot of other anti-war groups.
I would also be embarrassed about the nonsense propagated by my side on the Plame non-scandal.
I know and care little about the groups you mention, and I doubt that most of the 60% of Americans who express opposition to current US policy do, either.
ReplyDeleteThe media didn't plan and execute the war.
"The media didn't plan and execute the war."
ReplyDeleteNo, thet just undermined it, as we both know.
Guys, I believe this whole pack of “lies about Bush” is nothing but a Washington Game that is hauled out to keep the public involved in a snipe hunt while more important issues that Congress doesn’t want us to examine closely are happening. Go back and check out what else was happening when each of these allegations hit the news stands. Every time a big story was “leaked” there was a bill in Congress, or a movement in DC, that we the people would be opposed to, but Congress wanted passed. They only failed one time with the ports deal. The 'leak' that time wasn’t strong or "juicy" enough to get the media’s attention.
ReplyDeleteIt has always gone on of course, but really became a blood sport with all the “lies about Clinton” (Whitewater, Valerie, etc.) formulated by the Republicans. Now the Democrats are having their day with the “lies about Bush” Women was Clinton’s Achilles Heel and Iraq is Bush’s. The subject doesn’t matter, it just has to be something the public will swallow and at least 40% of the public will be opposed to or appalled by. We have short memories and fail to step back and see the pattern emerging. The public, as has been the case forever, is being duped by the power brokers. BB
Bubba, I do not think the media undermined Bush on Iraq, I think Bush undermined Bush on Iraq.
ReplyDeleteBB, no sensationalistic stories are needed to underscore the importance of the war in Iraq. There are of course many issues facing the country, but none is more pressing than this one.
Ed Cone said:
ReplyDelete"I do not think the media undermined Bush on Iraq, I think Bush undermined Bush on Iraq."
But we, the public, learn everything we know about Iraq from the media unless we've gone there personally (which I have.)
We see Bush make a speech or a statement. Then see Democrat after Democrat get in front of the camera for several days calling Bush a liar, denigrating everything he said, blah, blah, blah. So what does the average citizen believe? He believes what he sees over and over and over again, which is anti-Bush.
Everyday US and Multinational forces carry on serious, nation-building projects in Iraq. They build schools, help set up local governments, do health projects, engage in women's issues, resettle refugees, and rebuild families. But what do we see from the media? "3 US troops killed in bomb blast."
Al Qaeda long ago embarked on a publicity program to promote their ideology and drive a wedge between the U.S. public and our government in an attempt to destroy our will to fight terrorists. President Bush gave some specific of this in his speech to the Military Officers Association today. As long as the media is the main source of information our citizens use to form their opinions then they will always unduly influence what we believe about world events.
The media can make us believe what they want us to believe, the truth be damned.
"The media can make us believe what they want us to believe, the truth be damned."
ReplyDeleteAnother Inconveient Truth that Ed ignores.
My view of Iraq is much more informed by things like military and diplomatic testimony to Congress than by some Democratic talking head, or by a speech by the president, or a headline about bad news.
ReplyDeleteThe big problem in Iraq is not al Qaeda. We are babysitting a civil war, sparked not by the media but by a power struggle between local forces. Let's pray it doesn't happen, but let's be clear on the situation.
The media didn't go to war in a country uninvolved in 9/11, although the media did cheer the way, and I do blame them for that.
The media didn't send too few troops, or promise that we'd be greeted as liberators (although they did parrot that promise),or fail to plan for a widely predicted insurgency, etc.
Bush owns this thing, and our country owns it with him.
I don't have an easy answer for what to do now, beyond firing the people who have so poorly planned and executed everything the non-military aspects of this adventure.
"I don't have an easy answer for what to do now, beyond firing the people who have so poorly planned and executed everything the non-military aspects of this adventure."
ReplyDeleteI've got a better solution.
Let's fire all the armchair experts in the Media and in the Blogsphere who have consistently showed they don't have a clue. We'll start with the NYT, who was one of the sources Simon originally had in mind.
That way, there's no chance the public will get fooled again on an issue as important as this.
The NYT did get fooled by the Bush case for war, it's sad but true. But Judy Miller already got fired for that.
ReplyDeleteI think the public has a pretty good grip on the sad situation in Iraq, and a pretty good understanding on who is responsible for putting us into it.
Ed, Congressional testimony is partisan at best. Dems asking questions to elicit the negative answers they want, Republicans asking questions to get the truth out. You pick your side and agree with it. Television has transformed hearings into platforms for politicians to advance their agenda. Hardly unbiased.
ReplyDeleteMay I ask where you got your information to form the conclusions that we sent too few troops, weren't greeted as liberators, or didn't plan for an insurgency? Wait, let me guess...from a biased mainstream media that fed you what they wanted you to believe.
The "Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11" line is really tired these days. Just because they didn't plan or execute the attacks doesn't mean they weren't a colossal threat in their own right to the entire Middle East. To ignore the effects of unrest in the Middle East in any form is to bury your head in the sand. Sort of like saying as long as terrorism is one block away from your house you don't have to be concerned about it.
Yes, our entire country "owns" the fight against global terrorism to keep it from our shores. Unlike his predecessor Slick Willie who did little to stop it during his EIGHT years, George Bush stepped up after less than eight MONTHS and took on the ugly dragon rearing it's head for yet another assault on Infidels and the U.S.
Ed, we were both posting at the same time.
ReplyDeleteEvery single thing Bush said in making the case for war has been proven to be true. Every one. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I mean with facts, not blog opinions or op-eds by anti-Bush pundits.
The "people" who put us into Iraq were the Bath party and Saddam Hussein who continued to pursue a nuclear weapons capability to complement their chemical weapons so they could attack their neighbors. No free and democratic country can let that happen; that's why we went to war with a coalition of almost 40 other countries who also recognized the threat.
Jaycee, our understanding of the basic facts is very different. If at long last you still believe we had enough troops, Saddam had a credible nuclear program, etc., I'm not going to change your mind in this forum.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the conversation, all, and for the space, Bubba.
Ed, if you can disprove what I believe, please do.
ReplyDelete"Credible" is a matter of what you choose to believe. I've seen enough facts to convince me. Your "facts" came from news and internet coverage, am I correct? Mine mostly came from classified intel and being present at debriefings of former Bath party members and former Hussein military officials while I worked in Iraq.
Insurgencies can never be predicted as to strength, duration, scope, etc. We quickly achieved a military success in replacing the regime, and regardless of the liberal and biased media coverage the battles and combat actions are few and far between. They seem more frequent because that's all you see from a media that wants you to believe doom-n-gloom. The reality is far from that.
Tens of millions of Iraqis and Coalition forces go about their day-to-day lives with little or no effect from insurgents. 3 of 18 provinces have problems, the rest are relatively untouched. The media would have you believe every street has car bombs going off and rockets pouring in. That ain't so.
Believe what you will, but remember that you're force-fed the info you use to make your conclusions by the mainstream media.
Ed bailed out, jaycee.
ReplyDeleteHis talking points do not get him anywhere among people like us who refuse to be fooled on this subject by people like him.
They aren't talking points, Bubba, they are the documented and widely-agreed upon facts of the situation in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteNot spin, but stuff like this: "Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo."
And this:
"Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the U.S. Central Command commander, did not try to sugarcoat things. 'Sectarian violence is as bad as I have seen it in Baghdad,' he said. 'If it is not stopped, it is possible Iraq can slip into civil war.'"
The latter was reported in the Marine Corps Times, by the way.
Links here
http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/2006/08/iraqd.html
If you can provide specific factual rebuttals to things like the senior officers' August testimony to Congress, or the just-extended state of emergency in Iraq, or the administration's back-down on it's pre-war claims of a serious nuclear program in Iraq, have at it.
Look, nobody with any sense is happy that things are going the way they are in Iraq. And obviously, people spin to their own perceived advantage. But just saying "nuh-uh" isn't really an argument.
If you want to have a conversation at your blog, great. If you don't, that's your choice.
Ed, those are some good quotes. They refer to the opinion of one person to his boss, Tony Blair. The other quote is talking about one specific area, Baghdad. It does not address the rest of the country. That's like saying if there's a string of murders in Atlanta then the whole, entire US of A is on the verge of a murder war! Perspective is NOT an ingredient in the liberal media coverage of Iraq, and you show how you've bought into the lies by using those quotes, as if they portray the complete situation. I assure you they do not. Perspective, my friend, it's all about perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnd where do you get off thinking your responsibility here is to "change my mind" about things through this blog?
What makes you think you know everything about everything? You have your opinion, and everyone else has theirs. Is that why you come here, to talk down to us "little people" from your perch in the ivory tower and show us the light, the error of our ways?
Sorry, I don't buy the liberal line on everything. So I guess you can take your football and leave.
Jaycee, you don't buy the liberal line on "everything"? How about on *anything*? Nothing Ed or I or anyone else says makes one bit of difference to you or Bubba.
ReplyDeleteI've said it before and I'll say it again, unless both sides are willing to listen, actually *listen* to the other and hear the merits of a particular issue and the FACTS associated with them, we are all doomed as a nation. I am perfectly willing to admit when I am wrong about an issue and at least am willing to hear out the other side, but it seems that you live in some kind of right-based fantasy land where liberals are always responsible for all the great evils of the world and where GWB can do no wrong.
What hope for discussion can there be if this is the case? Where am I wrong? Where do you disagree with this President or administration? Surely there must be *something* you think he's done incorrectly. No president is infallible. I hope to God you realize that.
roger, you demand that a "discussion" conclude with me agreeing with everything you say because you're a liberal, hate Bush for "stealing" the election and you *know* that you're right all the time.
ReplyDeleteAin't gonna happen, podner.
I know crap from shinola, and you spout crap. You make liberal talking-point assertions, regardless of fact. You skew and twist the truth to try and further your own agenda. You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you on the butt.
I do read and listen, I just haven't seen anything you and some of the other folks try to pawn off on here as "truth" that actually is the truth.
'Nuff said. Since you're not adding to the discussion you'll get no further replies from me.
"I just haven't seen anything you and some of the other folks try to pawn off on here as "truth" that actually is the truth."
ReplyDeleteNothing anyone here from the "left" has written is the truth. Nothing. At all. Ever.
I rest my case.
Jaycee, I'm trying to cite facts to move a discussion forward.
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to give offense, but to continue a conversation I thought we were having.
Facts are not liberal or conservative. They are facts. You are correct that perspective matters, but at some point there is such a thing as objective reality in worldy affairs.
I don't know everything, or think I know everything, and I tend to write from a run-down former factory on Lee St, not an ivory tower. I'm presenting the facts as I understand them, from the best sources available.
As I said before, we seem to be talking past each other, so I will stop. (Cue snarky personal comment from Bubba).
"As I said before, we seem to be talking past each other, so I will stop. (Cue snarky personal comment from Bubba)."
ReplyDeleteAnd here we have Ed's idea of "trying to move the conversation forward".
You just can't stand it, can you Ed?
Meanwhile, let's move past the distractions thrown up by certain posters to deflect the main point of the thread: The culture of media and political corruption that tried to fabricate yet another non-scandal to lay at the feet of the Bush Administration.
ReplyDeleteHere's Christopher Hitchens' take on the nonsense, and the non apologies from the media (and the blogsphere).
Noteworthy:
"In the stylistic world where disclosures are gleaned and ironies underscored, the nullity of the prose obscures the fact that any irony here is only at the authors' expense. It was Corn in particular who asserted—in a July 16, 2003, blog post credited with starting the entire distraction—that:
'The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security.'"
"Gang politics triumphs national security"! That's a howl.
The Libs use this very same tactic to weaken national security over another non-scandal, the NSA surveillance and data mining.
They are hypocrites of the worst type--the ones whio will say or do anything, regardless of the cost to the nation and the people, to regain political, social, and economic power.
Ed Cone wrote:
ReplyDelete"Jaycee, I'm trying to cite facts to move a discussion forward."
Not quite an accurate statement, Ed.
You're espousing your "opinion" of the facts, which does not reflect mine for reasons I cited.
Your conclusions are based on the info you gather from news sources, which have been shown to be biased against the Bush administration and conservatives in general.
You're welcome to your opinions, but don't think for a minute that your mission in life as a liberal is to convert us dumb, uneducated conservatives.
Gents, there's a big difference between FACT and OPINION.
ReplyDeleteExample of a fact:
"3 Killed in Baghdad Car Bombing"
Example of ONE opinion based on this fact:
"Bush's foreign policy is getting GI's killed, Iraq has gone to hell in a handbasket, we must CUT AND RUN."
Another OPINION based on this fact:
"Nice to see the other 17 provinces In Iraq are doing well, our foreign policy has decreased the bombings, we must stay and finish the job."
Perspective, folks. Some see the glass half full, some see it half empty.
Don't confuse fact with opinion.
Ed, there are many problems more important than Iraq right now. As jaycee said you are getting your news from the media as is evident by all your arguments. You are not listening to those who are there, or who have been there. My sources are just lowly soldiers but having been military it is surprising how much the lowly soldiers know about what is going on. Iraq is doing much better than we are being told because we are only being told about the hot spots in Baghdad. And I do mean hot spots. These are only a few areas. Listen to the reports and soon you will notice how they keep reporting on the same parts of Baghdad. Baghdad is a huge city where the vast majority of the people are going about their business with no problems. Civil War is nowhere near breaking out. They have hoodlums just like we did in the 1930’s Chicago that the police have to root out. It will get taken care of eventually. In the meantime we have an army on the ground in the Middle East where we are going to need them soon. So there is no way that we want to "pull out" of the area! Reserves are being used over there because the regular Army is training for the real fight to come.
ReplyDeleteNow about those more important problems that Congress is too busy bashing Bush (The Washington Game) to do anything about: the real danger in the Middle East is Iran and Hezbollah and Congress is fiddling with politics as Iran gets nuclear weapons, which means the terrorist will have them soon after and will then hold the world hostage. So brush up on the Koran because you are going to be swearing allegiance to it! The next big problem is the security of our borders. They are now as they have always been: wide open. We now have more terrorist in this country than in Iraq. Great Britain should be teaching us a lesson, but there again we aren’t paying attention. The biggest problem however is the naiveté or stupidity or both of the American people in letting themselves be side tracked with all the nonsense. But of course, who am I but just some old broad who has lived her life under a bushel! Brenda Bowers
The GAO? That's rich!
ReplyDeleteStew, you DO have a sense of humor, don't you?
If you're going to quote the GAO, I get to quote DOD
Noteworthy:
"Most of the attacks are in only four of the 18 provinces, the report notes. Fourteen provinces remain fairly peaceful and in one – Muthanna in the south –no coalition forces are operating."
Let's see-- who do we trust?
The bureaucrats behind their desks in Washington?
Or the people on the ground who have to deal with it every day?
Perhaps we should just leave it to the LGBBC, who are the experts on everything?
Ed, I appreciate the GAO link, but that report is 5 months old. I believe the DoD cite by Bubba is more up to date.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, I was using that as an example of how people construe "facts" to support their position.
As I said, some see the glass as half full, some see it as half empty.
Having been a cop for a couple of decades, I understand the obstacles involved in fighting unconventional enemies with conventional troops/tactics. But when it seemed the bad guys were getting the upper hand, I didn't abandon ship, and the brave officers still serving haven't, either. Same with our military.
I find that the approval percentage of serving troops for our President and the war on terror is very high. I know this from polls and military newspapers, but mostly from personal contact while I was in Iraq. These are the guys on the ground who have a far better understanding of what's really happening in-theater than those of us here at home.
The sensational events get the headlines, the day-to-day reconstruction efforts by troops and contractors get scant attention. So what do we see day in and day out from the mainstream media? Only bad news.
Sad, but true.
Ah yes, the GAO. Why would we want to listen to an organization that literally has 'accountability' as its middle name. The liberal media, the lefties and now the bureaucrats are all out to get poor W.
ReplyDeleteDo any of you have ANY recollection of what transpired just a decade ago in DC? Clinton was accused of rape, murder, fraud, conspiracy and using attacks on terrorist bases as a diversion. It is important to remember that none of these charges had ANY merit, yet the MSM/Liberal media ate it up and help to crucify the man for not being truthful about an affair. Now you want us to believe that we should feel sory for poor W for people challenging his opinion of the state of the war? Spare me.
MANY people were against this war from the beginning, I am one of them. The mainstream media is culpable because they took Bush admin statements as fact when they were actually opinion. If anything W is paying now for the free ride that he got in 2003.
The administration gets no credibility now because so much of what they said was wrong. So much of what they have said have been lies.
"Iraq wouldn't allow weapons inspectors in the country" - not true
"These tube prove that the weapons program is being reconstituted" - not true
"We will be greeted as liberators" - laughably not true
Jaycee - you seem to believe that you have seen evidence, hard evidence, that justifies the war. Why hasn't some of this evidence been declassified? Perhaps because some of it is bunk. If you get 10 different stories from 10 different people, perhaps it all gets thrown out. Perhaps you only saw one of the stories, I don't know. The point is that the military is rife with rumor, inuendo and soldiers that have a limited scope of experiences. Just because the guys on the ground "know" something does not make it true. If there is no evidence that is fit for general consumption, it is immaterial.
I cannot tell you how many active military personnel I spoke to prior to the war that implied that there was plenty of intel coming out of Iraq that PROVES he has WMD's. My response was "show me." 3 years later, nothing has been produced.
As for why the lefty media doesn't report the great things that we are doing in Iraq, I think there are many causes. Sure violence sells. But reporters are being killed while trying to cover stories. They are being kidnapped. How hard is it to get from the Green Zone to the kurdish north? I suspect it ain't easy. As of a few months ago, they still needed air support for the drive to the airport. Finally, there have been attack on people that participate in these stories. A reporter does a story on a new school opening and a teacher is interviewed. If that teacher is threatened or killed for that act, how many interviews are they going t get?
The reporters still do not have freedom of movement in Iraq, so they are reliant on military escort. It is impossible to get good reporting under those conditions.
Isn't amazing how some of these posters can say so little with so many words?
ReplyDeleteEvery paragraph of the last poster's comments has factual errors and opinions that do not have substantiation from the chain of facts.
Why are we not surprised?
penguin, the thrust of your comment seems to be that if a reporter doesn't see it, it ain't happening. Not true. Reporters have more freedom of movement and accessibility than in any other conflict. They choose which stories to cover. But they know what sells (violence and death that "proves" this war is WRONG) so that's what they report. They know the slant/bias of their employer, so that's the slant they pursue in their stories. This pretty much dictates what media coverage comes out of Iraq.
ReplyDeleteA story about helping people will never outsell a story about death and destruction, especially with glossy pics or video of the carnage.
Bubba, pick your favorite and we can figure out who is fact-twisting.
ReplyDeleteJaycee, are you saying that 3 years after "victory" reporters in Iraq now are safer and more free to travel that reporters in Germay 3 years after VE day?
penguin, you're comparing apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteIn Germany we fought conventional forces who voluntarily surrendered and disarmed and disbanded after being defeated.
There are indeed many, many areas of Iraq into which reporters can freely and safely travel. However, these are not the areas in which "blood and guts" events are occurring, so they're not very popular because there's only nation-building, reconstruction, and other good things going on. Not very interesting, huh? So you don't get reports on that.
Jaycee, I grant you that blood and guts sells. I also do believe that good things are happening in some parts of the country, but there are still many areas in the country that are not business as usual. I am certain that even during the height of the civil war, people in Connecticut were going about their daily business. That doesn't detract from the real fact that thousands were dying in a war 500 miles away.
ReplyDeleteSure we are building schools and reconstructing mosques, but to fault the media for not covering those events in favor of coverage of a war whose outcome is still in doubt is unfair.
Can we agree that there are parts of the country that are not under control and that there is at least an equal chance that the mayhem in those areas spreads outward as it is that the peace and tranquility overruns the hotspots? If not equal, which way would you say it leans w.r.t. spreading? I fear that the former is more likely and that not recognizing the tenuous nature of the situation there makes it even more likely.
I am personally not in favor of withdrawal. We owe it to the people that we have hurt to try to make things right. But that does not preclude debate of the merits of the war in the first place. I wonder if the vote on use of force were held today how would it go?
penguin said:
ReplyDelete"We owe it to the people that we have hurt to try to make things right."
Are you talking about the terrorists? Because that's who's hurting there now. They comprise a tiny, tiny portion of the Iraq people.
The terrorists atrocities in Iraq are a small, small part of the overall picture. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are exercising their newly found freedom, starting businesses, educating their children, and building their country. They're joining the Army and Police in staggering numbers to defend their society against terrorists. Terrorist actions are a very tiny part of what's happening there, I can't stress that enough. many here in the U.S. believe that's ALL that's happening there because of the media obsession with twisting the truth to try and destroy President Bush.
If you held a vote in Iraq, I can assure you how it would go.
Now if you take a vote here after 3 years of negative pounding by the Dems and libs, I think some people might vote based on what they believe is happening as reported to them by the liberal press, because that's all they have to go on.