Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I think the actual document is here.
There are two things I find interesting about this document. One, that the media strategy is the most important thing. Getting news sources to give the impression they would like is most important. All the other stuff, i.e. actual violence is secondary. Two, that the author doesn't think Iran has WMDs, but that getting the U.S. to believe it does, and getting the U.S. into a shooting war with Iran will lower the crushing pressure on Al Qaeda in Iraq, by moving U.S. troops out of the country and alienating portions of the Shia.I have the impression from years of news reports that Iran is working feverishly on creating nuclear weapons and will get them sooner or later. (I mean, how hard could it be? We had them in the 1940s.) Why does this Al Qaeda analyst think otherwise? Does he have special knowledge? Does he think the Iranians are doing a Saddam and bluffing? Is this document itself a plant to cause us doubt in our dealings with Iran?
You're not one of those people whose heart lifts at bad news from Iraq, are you?I don't know anyone disgusting enough to cheer for bad news from Iraq. Do you actually know a single person that actually wishes for bad news from Iraq?Everyone I know wants the war over as soon as possible and a democracy to flourish there.Okay, I confess, I know of two people that look for bad news in Iraq and the United States:"I hit the Trifecta!" "I am a war President"and from Faux news:"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
This gloomy news from Iraq gladdens my heart! Thanks for passing it along. As a total aside that I don't intend to follow up with any further comment, it just cracks me up that Bill O'Reilly said that about Coit Tower. Coit Tower? I live in San Francisco, and I never think about Coit Tower. It's a beautiful structure that represents a beautiful sentiment and I suppose it has some iconic force, but the destruction of Coit Tower would not strike at the heart. O'Reilly just pulled that out of his ass or something. Too funny.
I don't know anyone disgusting enough to cheer for bad news from Iraq.You should hear the delighted lip smacking way my college-age brother says the word quagmire. But if you asked him, he'd probably deny hoping for bad news.
There are plenty of people who wish for bad news from Iraq -- almost all of them on the left. Heck, just look at the leftist blogs out there. The writing absolutely soars when something goes wrong. I have two good friends who despise Bush and you should hear the glee in their voices every time something goes wrong over there. They don't hate the troops or wish them harm, but they know what is bad for Iraq is bad for Bush and they can't help themselves.And sure, the left wants a Democracy to flourish there, but only after Bush is out of office and a Democrat takes over -- then all of a sudden things will be going swell there, and as an added plus, our economy will be great (even though it will not have changed one bit).
There are plenty of people who wish for bad news from Iraq -- almost all of them on the left. Heck, just look at the leftist blogs out there.Yes, those dirty leftists. Please continute to paint half the country with the same brush, it is ever so helpful. Of course, the other half of the country is drinking the Coulter Kool-Aid, so what can I expect?I'm with quxxo -- I know of no one who cheers (or has a lifted heart) when bad news comes out of Iraq. Wince, yes. Moan, yes. Mumble, yes. Cheer, no.
Jeez, MM, this is elementary logic.ALL P ARE Qis not the same as sayingALL Q ARE P (the claim you disagree with),only thatSOME Q ARE PSo, where "Q" is "leftists" (whom I would dispute make up anything close to "half" the population) and "P" is "people who are encouraged by bad news in Iraq":ALL [people who are encouraged by bad news in Iraq] ARE [leftists]is not the same as sayingALL [leftists] ARE [people who are encouraged by bad news in Iraq] (the claim you disagree with),only thatSOME [leftists] ARE [people who are encouraged by bad news in Iraq].
I don't know anyone who stands up and cheers (in public) BUT I know plenty that did not get elated when Zarquawi was killed. That tells me a lot cause the next question out of their mouths is what about OBL?
You're not one of those people whose heart lifts at the chance to bait the left and do a Coulter, are you?Well, uh, apparently you are.Shame on you, Ann. I mean, Anns.
TWM - you nailed it. Not only are there many who revel in bad news related to anything they can stick to this administration, but your second point is even better. We already have potential Democratic candidates 'positioning' themselves for their chance at the helm and realize that an immediate withdrawal would be foolish and -worse - immediately relegate them to a one-term presidency.As for Al Qaeda not believing Iran has WMD, I think it shows two things: 1) no one has great intelligence; and 2) actually having them isn't their only goal. Making others believe, can be as powerful. What needs to done, as Saddam learned, is receive the consequences for playing that game or show their hand and learn to play nicely with the rest of the world.
O'Reilly just pulled Coit Tower out of his ass....What an image!....I said "You're not one of those people whose heart lifts at bad news from Iraq, are you?" Why are so many people hearing a reference to themselves in that? Guilty conscience? Why did I write it that way? Partly to see who would come forward and feel it was about them, but partly because I've read enough blogs and heard enough talk around Madison that I know some people revel in the bad news from Iraq. Most of them are just people who are overeager to get ammunition to use against Bush and various Republicans, but a few of them actually want to see the U.S. defeated in the war. If that's not you, then you're not one of those people... which is exactly what I said.
I wish I could agree with you, MadisonMan, I really do, but I can't. Unfortunately, I do know people who express glee upon receipt of bad news from Iraq, and yes, they are all self-proclaimed leftists living in the Berkeley area. I also believe that they are atypical and that their hatred for George Bush has definitely pushed them over the edge. It seems to me that they take their cues from people like George Galloway and ANSWER. I am surprised you have never run across one in Madison much less the internet.Does this mean that everyone left of center agrees with them? Of course not. But the heat with which others respond whenever someone mentions people like that makes me think of guilty consciences and that old saying about those who protest a bit too much.
"Auntie M.", how many times are you going to change your name? "Reasonator", "Lurketto", a few others I can't remember... are you such a dumbass that you don't notice that even if you change your screen name, your Blogger profile page link stays the same?
Can you be defensive about something you claim doesn't happen?
The document is fascinating. I heard that it was found on Zarqawi's flash card that he kept in his pocket. Zarqawi knew is technology.Here are two nuggets fromt he document: 1) That it points out as its number 1 concern the damage the Iraqi "national Guard" has done to its efforts. Many in this country don't believe the Iraqi army is doing anything.2) That a leader in the "Sunni" resistance admits that Sunnis are a minority (although the claims 30%). Many sunnis in Iraq believe that they are actually the majorty.
The desire to see Bush fail has turned much of our media into a fifth column for the terrorists, and they clearly know it.
P.S. Being a fifth column for terrorism does not mean the media want to serve in this capacity. That is, it is not a fifth column in the sense of corrdination, but rather in serving as useful idiots, just as Lenin described them.
Pogo: So, in light of your follow-up, by "they," do you mean: (1) the media, (2) the terrorists, or (3) both?
Plutonium-Q36, You are an idiot. Just try following the links and you'll see immediately that you are posting out of your butt.Ann, I don't see anyone here feeling guilty about what they write, even the ones (like YOU) that should.Anytime anyone writes anything like, "lefties living in Berkeley", or Madison, or "all those lefties", we know where that comes from. More importantly the folks that will come here from google to understand Ann Althouse knows where that comes from. It's the bigotry of small minds of people that cannot formulate an argument. It is bullying. It is the kind of crap I once thought we had left behind after WWII, or possibly after jr. high school.Jeez, 65%-70% of America disagrees with Bush. You folks love to make this claim that 30-35% of America LOVES America and the rest of us are Stalinists and Terrorist Sympathizers.Bush is deeply deeply unpopular. Most people consider him incompetent. Instead of railing at your fellow citizens, all of whom love this country as much if not more than you do, just deal with the fact that you back an incompetent, corrupt, lying fool.Deal with it, and let's move on.
Pogo: What I'm asking is, do you think that a prominent portion of the MSM is a fifth column, knows it, doesn't want it, but carrys on anyway out of self-interest?That's what I think.
Er, fifth column in the broadest sense of the term.
Bissage:The documents found in Zarqawi's hideout clearly show the terrorists are aware of the fifth column: "To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance. ".Are the mainstream media aware of their own role in this? If aware, do they reject it? If aware, do they go along anyway?I don't pretend to know for sure. I think some are merely useful idiots, as I said. Some are appeasers, falsely believing that helping the terrorists will help us in the long run. In effect, both groups are functioning as a fifth column, yes.I hope the anti-US faction so virulent in the 1960s and 1970s, many of whom became members of the Establishment, is not actively complicit here. But like the communist spies in the US government in the 1950s, I wouldn't really be surprised to find out it was true.
Jacques Cruze,Amazing that you want us to deal with what you claim are the statistics of how the country feels but you have spent apparently every waking moment since Kerry lost the election fighting tooth and nail against anything Bush wants to do or that any republican even suggests. I would say that the deal with it is what is missing from the left and that is exactly what would be of assistance to the country right now. Of course, that will not happen but we can deal without the left since we have had to for the past 6 years anyway. They have had no ideas, no plans, no suggestions except pull out but don't pull out, back the troops but don't use them, etc. You have now gone beyond the ludicrous into the delusional!
You folks love to make this claim that 30-35% of America LOVES America and the rest of us are Stalinists and Terrorist Sympathizers.That HAS to win "Strawman of The Day."
Abraham. Interesting choice of award.Strawman at Wickepedia includes this: The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
"Plutonium-Q36, You are an idiot. Just try following the links and you'll see immediately that you are posting out of your butt."You've proven yourself, by your conduct here, to be borderline mentally impaired so I'll spell it out for you: the blogger profile is unavailable, yes (cowards are a dime a dozen!) but there is still a unique id for the account, in this case 18591647. Hover over the link to "Reasonator's" unavailable profile page in this thread and what do you see? Why it's a link to Blogger profile page number 18591647. Same for "Lurketto" in other threads. You, as much as anyone, should know you can change your screen name without changing your Blogger account. I know some people think that the various names used for account 18591647 are your various other personalities but I'm not sure you're clever enough for something like that, though I admit that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the theory (like the fact that you love to quote Reasonator/Lurketto/etc on your pathetic stalker blog).Anyway, I don't usually choose to acknowledge you, because you're a sociopathic vandal as well as being a crushing bore, but this was a great opportunity to mock you so I bent the rules a little.
Pogo: Thank you.
Pogo:"I don't pretend to know for sure. I think some are merely useful idiots, as I said. Some are appeasers, falsely believing that helping the terrorists will help us in the long run. In effect, both groups are functioning as a fifth column, yes."Genuine question here. WHo are the "some" you are referring to in each of your categories? Which specific media participants are you saying "believe they are helping the terrorists" and upon what actions do you base your statements? Your statements on their face seem like incredible allegations to me but I'm willing to assume you know some things I don't, which is why I ask.And specifically who are the "useful idiots" and what is the basis for this conclusion, i.e., what actions make someone a "useful idiot" - and i assume you mean useful to the terrorists? Actually, I'm not even sure what you mean by this part - do you mean that if a terrorist group sets off a series of car bombs in the middle of a populated and guarded area and 10 people are killed that only a "useful idiot" would report that this event actually ocurred? I don't think that's what you mean, so if you can, please elaborate. Thanks
Well then Marvin, I apologize, because my original complaint was because I thought you had thrown quxxo into the list of Lurketto, Reasonater and Auntie M.On the otherhand, your upset with Auntie M. is really an upset with Blogger. If Blogger wants to let people change their screen names, why should you care. As you point out, it is trivially easy to detect that. And it is not the same at all as someone running a sock-puppet (though I have never seen you or Maxine Weiss in the same room at the same time).I don't know why Lurketto is changing his screen name and I don't care. She is enjoying the freedom blogger gives us, so it is really unimportant.
Coc:We musn't forget that, after Saddam was captured, CNN admitted to covering up the atrocities and lies Saddam had spread while President-for-life, merely to maintain "access". I think this clearly falls into fifth column behavior, of the "knows it, doesn't want it, but carrys on anyway out of self-interest" kind.And via Instapundit today, WaPo's Richard Morin writres in What's Black and White and Red All Over?:"More ink equals more blood, claim two economists who say that newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks.Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."Hence, useful idiots.
Ignorning the contretemps on who feels good or bad about bad news from Iraq, I think the alleged al quaeda document shows a fairly high degree of political sophistication for someone (al zarqawi) who was not particularly educated and perceived (by at least me) to be a blood thirsty fantatic. Its genuinely scary to see that blood thirsty fanatics can also be quite sophisticated in their choice of tactics!!
Thanks Pogo. Is there anything other than the messy CNN incident you mentioned that you are referring to here? Also - they study discussed in the Morin article is interesting but I don't see how it relates to what I think you are saying. It analyzes the number of terrorist fatalities and the number of times the word "terrorism" appeared in the NYT and a Swiss newspaper. In a nutshell, the authors conclude that there is a very high correlation between the two. This seems rather obvious to me but perhaps I'm missing something. ALso, if it means what you seem to be implying it means then neither the government nor the media - and I mean any media - should report publicly that terrorist acts have ocurred. This is obviously impossible and implausible. The authors admit their study is very rudimentary and indeed, one can easily see that the using the word "terrorism" as your search term would pull-up all types of articles that are not actuallly reporting about terrorism. For example, any story discussing the governments intentions to fight terrorism, etc. would be encompassed. Regardless, the authors suggested possible solutions to the the problems they see is for the media not to attribute any particular terrorist act to a terrorist group, to raise the level of education of readers of newspapers so that they will not be swayed by more sensationalist-types of stories, and raising the educational and business opportunities for potential terrorists so that they don't commit terrorist acts. And so I ask the question - what is the media supposed to do when a terrorist act occurs? NOt report it? Should the media not report that 9/11 ocurred? Surely this event increased media consumption tremendously. Is anyone who reports the event a "useful idiot" for terrorists? I still don't get it.
Re: "And so I ask the question - what is the media supposed to do when a terrorist act occurs? NOt report it?"I would only ask that you contrast the reporting for this war with that during WW2. The difference is immediate and startling. Information, including bad news, was frequently suppressed.The mainstream press now takes the "drive-by shooting" approach common to the local news. One is often left wondering if there is a US military response. Did we get any bad guys? Where are we? What are the goals? Are we reaching any of them? But forget about gathering that knowledge from the NYT today, something they were quite capable of doing in the 1940s. Only when one reads the military blogs does a coherent sense of strategy and progress seem evident.I make that out to be useful idiocy, although on some days it appears to be outright complicity. The problem is larger than reporting on indiviual car bombs. It's ignoring which side you're on. And if the NYT can't find the stones to be on our side, it also must recognize that such a stance isn't a neutral one.Do we not report it? Did we report the true outcomes of D-Day or Guadalcanal when they happened? The answer to the first question is contained in the second.
Coco,If you take a look at Instapundit today - start at the top and go down to the section starting with Howard Kurtz - and read that and you just might finally see what people are complaining about with the media - especially pay attention to the letter from the Marine officer when he talks about the reporting from Iraq and how it happens. If you read it with an open mind you just might finally see what is going on. If the reporters read this they should really hand their heads in shame over the job they are doing.Then take a look at Blackfive and read about how the military think that if the Marines are guilty as charged they should hang but the decision should not be made until the investigation is done. Another story the media has screwed up badly. Then read about how the mayor of the Iraqi town came all the way to Colorado Springs to thank the army group that protected his town and the media did not report it except in some of the local papers out there. Or how about when the military guys asked for money to set up media outlets for the Iraqis to run themselves and got millions of dollars in less than a week. They got the equipment and the media reported a car wreck on the freeway rather than the millions of dollars of audio, video and computer equipment that was obtained so that the Iraqis could set up their newspapers and television and radio stations.That is the media we are getting and it sucks big time.
Coco - I don't think anyone is suggesting the media not run accurate reports on terrorist attacks, etc. I think what people are suggesting is that the media also report on progress made by the US military, etc. While I sometimes wonder if the military is effective in getting positive information into the hands of reporters, I assume the media doesn't hear directly from Al Qaeda. So, it likely comes down to a preference for investigating and reporting the negative.Its illuminating to note that soldiers (especially milbloggers) are quite frustrated with media coverage while Al Qaeda appears to be satisfied. On the other hand, soldiers (especially milbloggers) are positive about actual progress while Al Qaeda appears to be frustrated.
quxxo got schooled!
Hee - see, this is why I have a little web crush on Palladian!
Jennifer,Part of the problem is the media gets its information from stringers, not from its own reporters. As for the military getting the info out, they are trying to be careful to check the info out before they release it. By that time the media has stuff from the stringers so they don't bother to report what the military has to say. Oftentimes they don't even show up for the briefings by the military even though they are sitting in the bars of the Green Zone close by the headquarters.I think that is why we keep hearing quagmire right up until the Iraqis show up in numbers greater than vote here to cast their ballots in the elections. The next day it is right back to quagmire. Broken record there!!
dick - I just looked up stringers - I had no idea the major news outlets operated that way. It explains a lot. Thanks!
Jen,That's Iraqi stringers, some with questionable ties to the bad guys that seem to get them to terrorist events in time to shoot good film.oh, and not worry about being shot as a tool of the Americans at the same time.hard to straddle both circumstances without connections
Coco,Additional instances of useful idiocy would include the use of stringers in Iraq who seem to be in league with the terrorists, such as the stringer who "happened" to be on Haifa Street at the exact time when terrorists pulled an Iraqi official out of his car and assassinated him. This stringer had many such coincidences and was subsequently arrested.Also, the men of iraqthemodel.com commented on Bremer's wonderful farewell speech--on the same day that our newspapers reported that Bremer snuck out of Iraq in shame without saying a word. They wrote too that the papers also recently published an erroneous translation of an Iraq minister's words to imply he was supporting Iran. You may want to start reading their blog.Newsweek published the Koran flushing incident without an iota of proof.And on and on. IMO these errors are too numerous to be honest errors. To me, it is a pattern which suggests an agenda, probably not one I would concur with.
"do you mean that if a terrorist group sets off a series of car bombs in the middle of a populated and guarded area and 10 people are killed that only a "useful idiot" would report that this event actually ocurred?"No, but a useful idiot might portray violent events in an area with concentrated enemy activity explicitly for the purpose of influencing the media as representative of an entire country. My observation has been that reporters are extremely ignorant about things I have some expertise in (and I'll bet that's been your experience to), and I have to assume that ignorance extends to areas I don't know much about. They also tend to spout conventional wisdom without questioning it, and are easily manipulated by people with greater knowledge and an agenda, particularly when that agenda fits the reporter's worldview. Here's a great, nonpolitical example I've seen. This article (http://www.seacoastonline.com/2005news/11202005/news/74066.htm) contains this statement:"Part of the stability in air fare comes from nonunion regional airlines, like Southwest and Jet Blue, having competitive rates"Similar statements have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and The Street.com. I can't speak for JetBlue, but over 80 percent of Southwest employees are in a union. I'm pretty sure SWA is the most heavily unionized air carrier in the US, if not the world. A reporter making this statement relied on conventional wisdom and failed to do any fact checking at all.I've seen a number of surveys indicating that the vast majority of journalists have political views well to the left of center, and it's hardly surprising that their work generally reflects that worldview. Failure to question their own biases and misconceptions frequently does make them useful idiots.
I think it's important to make clear that the "useful" part of "useful idiots" in this discussion is from the point of view of the terrorists (i.e. the enemy).
knoxgirl said... quxxo got schooled!Yes, I got schooled! I got schooled by SlipperyCheese a few days ago to, when Karl walked.When quxxo gets schooled, what does quxxo do? Acknowledges it. When NoxieGirl and the other Ann functionaries get schooled what do they do? "Ban quxxo! Ban quxxo!"And when Ann gets schooled, rather than acknowledge it, what does she do?This post has been deleted by the blog administrator
It's late where you are, you psychotic bastard. Go to sleep.
Momxxo never taught little quxxo to lose gracefully.
coco:plenty of people have answered your questions and provided excellent examples of press bias,useful idiocy, or laziness. I would add this quote from the Baron WSJ article Ann refers to in a post up top:America's newsrooms are populated largely by liberals who regard the Vietnam and Watergate stories as the great achievements of their profession. The peak of their ambition is to achieve the fame and wealth of great reporters like David Halberstam and Bob Woodward.A lot of people who go to school in journalism aren't going to do the hard, and often tedious work it takes to cover a story in a straightforward, thorough, just-the-facts manner. They go to "change the world"!!! Instead of realizing that the job of a journalist is to sit quietly on the sidelines and report on the changers....
To dick, pogo, jennifer, patca, drill sgt, and others who replied to coco: The innacuracy of the media coverage of the war is a very hard thing to explain, because you're trying to convince people who truly hear no good news that progress is happening. It's very easy to only hear the bad news, as we all know!!It's like trying to convince someone that there's, I don't know, another person living in their house they've never noticed... why should they believe it!? They never see it... it seems absurd on its face.
Knoxgirl: Whenever subjects like this come up, I can't help thinking of Justice Potter Stewart's comments about pornography in 1964: "I know it when I see it . . . "Yet, some never do and never will.
For those that don't read Cox and Forkum they had a cartoon a couple of days ago that put the media bias in America in the proper perspective.
The episode that that lifted the veil from my eyes occurred in the fall of 2002. I watched Karl Rove give a talk at, I believe, the University of Utah. I watched it on C-Span. He took questions afterword. A young woman, with a No War! t-shirt walks up to the microphone and asks, respectfully, (I’m paraphrasing) “how do you, Karl Rove, suggest that we persuade our government to not go into Iraq. After all, we just had a protest of 200,000 people on the mall in D.C. and it didn’t seem to have an impact.” Rove, also respectfully, answers with the standard, “contact your elected representatives” and he finishes his answer with “but frankly, I’m more concerned with the 3,000 people who were killed on September 11 than the 200,000 protesters on the mall”. The next day, I’m reading a New York Times article on the event. The article has the woman asking “how can we persuade our government when it seems unconcerned about the 200,000 innocent Iraqis who will die in the invasion” and they had Rove responding “... but frankly, I’m more concerned with the 3,000 people who were killed on September 11 than the 200,000 innocent Iraqis who will die in the invasion”.I’m convinced this was done willfully. I watched the entire event on C-Span. The reporter could not have mixed up two different questions because, not only did the original questioner not use the phrase "200,000 innocent Iraqis who will die in the invasion", but no one else did either. Nothing even close to that was said by anybody. The Times did print a correction a few days later (apparently, they got caught) but, of course, it was buried in the paper.Independent of what one thinks of the war, how bad is that? What kind of person thinks it’s ok to just make up such a vile quote for publication in the New York Times (answer: “a journalist”)?I don't give these people the benefit of the doubt. They aren't useful idiots. They are on the other side.
rats. I just lost a long post due to putting in the wrong verification. Anyway - thanks to all those who commented in response to my questions and especially those who provided specific links that are brand new to me. I'm highly HIGHLY skeptical of the underlying claim and that it means what people think it means but I will investigate with an open mind becuase I really do want to understand why both the left and right are so convinved that the media is a craven complict machine acting for and against something (we've only beend discussing it from the right's perspective, but this is a constant meme on blogs from the left perspective as well). Thanks again
Mike,It often is willfull, as you discovered. I was a minor Democrat worker years ago, and when asked by a reporter how I felt about a certain election, I answered in one sentence. Next day, I found my one sentence, changed completely, with the addition of a whole paragraph! What in hell do they do to quotes from important people, I thought?I recently emailed a reporter questioning a somewhat racist caption on one of the photographs accompanying her story. She wrote back saying her editors put that in, over her objections and tearful argument. The quote IMO was meant to appeal to readers of the Vietnamese paper they own, which is gaining readership, while the circulation of the regular Caucasian paper is dropping.Coco, thanks for being gracious. I think the left blogs use this meme to avoid answering these rightful charges. The best defense is a good offense.
Coco,Just one more example for you to check out. When Sadr was starting to make such trouble in Baghdad we read in the newspaper and heard on TV that the whole city of Baghdad had shut down, shops weren't opening, schools were closed, businesses were shut down. Omar from Iraq the Model went out with his camera and photographed kids on their way to school, stores open, women out shopping, traffic jams of people on their way to work. Same day, same locations. That rather brought home to me the whole thing of the media and what we were hearing vs what was really going on.One other item. Michael Yon, the blogger/photographer/author, spet a good bit of time with the top enlisted man in Iraq. He traveled all over the country with him and sat in on his meetings, went out with him and troops. That enlisted man has just announced in the past couple of weeks that he is looking for a credentialed reporter to travel around with him, go out on troop actions, sit in while he has meetings, etc. It will be interesting to see if any reporter takes him up on it. He is an interesting man and is really almost as powerful as the generals over there. He goes everywhere from the safest to the most dangerous parts of the country. Maybe when we hear reports from those traveling with him we will finally get some good reporting from the actual reporters rather than the stringers.
"How are things going in Iraq?" "What can we do that will make things better, and not worse?"These are the two big questions. I suspect that no thoughtful person has the answer to either of those questions. (That is the position we find ourselves in). We could set a timetable for withdrawal and it could result in a heartened insurgency, more terrorism, and the need for more intervention. Or we could "stay the course", and the opposition could continue to grow, the government could continue to flounder, and the U.S. military could be weakened and our budget destroyed. . Too often, both sides assume that one or the other event could be true. Why can't both be true?
Yep, I change my screename every week or two. I don't see why you care so much. Anonymous is anonymous. But always better to call names and attack the messenger, isn't it. Beats the heck out of responding to the comment. Gee, the name calling is charming. The Right is so articulate and civil!
I guess you have to be a leftist like Larry Johnson, the LLL dems go to guy on the CIA. he made the statement in his latest column that Karl Rove's mother committed suicide because she saw what her sone was like. Is that the kind of civil commentary you approve of?Or take a look at DU and their comments. LGF on its best day could not even approximate the vicious slurs that DU has.
Ann Althouse: Most of them are just people who are overeager to get ammunition to use against Bush and various Republicans, but a few of them actually want to see the U.S. defeated in the war.It really saddens me that this goes on so much. I think there are people in both parties who act this way when the president is from the opposing party. I'm not a member of a political party and I always want my country and the world at large to be doing well and better, so I don't really relate. With Iraq, there's so many people INVESTED in things turning out terribly that deep down some of them feel they don't wanna be wrong. It's still up in the air how Iraq will turn out, which I think makes this happen even more, but also makes it even more deplorable than some want it to be a failure. I don't dislike all of the Bush haters and some of them have been right about some things. I just dislike the ones who seem to be in bad faith, and they shouldn't act surprised when their bad faith is noticed.
Post a Comment