PeterDavid.net

well said.

Ed

That stuff didn't happen for Vietnam vets at first either. A few years down the road, the people protesting the war were attacking the soliders as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again, in a couple years when the divide between those against the war and those for it deepens.

A lot of the people against the war seem to have a disdain for the use of military power in any form, and that often extends to those doing the deeds. Not all of them of course, but enough to eventually make things hard for the troops when they come back.

I mean look at the rhetoric against the war, it's often deeply cynical, and arrogant often acting as if those who support the war have no idea what they are doing, that they somehow don't realize what war is, let alone why Iraq needed to be invaded.

The BBC did a comparrison in speeches given on the eve of battle.

The British speech given by Lt. Col Tim Collins on the eve of the first battle in Iraq.

The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls, and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

We go to liberate, not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people, and the only flag that will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.

There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others, I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose.

But if you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory. It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts. They live with the mark of Cain upon them.

If someone surrenders to you, then remember they have that right in international law, and ensure that one day they go home to their family. The ones who wish to fight? Well, we aim to please.

If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest--for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform nor our nation. [Collins warns his troops that Saddam may attack them with chemical weapons.]

It is not a question of if; it's a question of when. We know that he has already devolved the decision to commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see, and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality, even though they have nothing.

Don't treat them as refugees, for they are in their own country. Their children in years to come will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

The US speech given by Vice Admiral Timothy Keating

Make no mistake, when the president says go, look out -- it's hammer time

If there are casualties of war, then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.

As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business is now in the north.

Not that i'm calling this an example of 'shameful behaviour' - I'm just noting the differences in attitude.

Again, well said, Peter.

And to add to the info here, I do recommend a collection called "Coming Home," from Bob Greene (yes, the one from the Tribune who resigned under shady circumstances). It's a good look, through letters from vets and their families, at what actualy happened to soldiers returning from Vietnam. Some spat upon, some abused by idiots, some treated like heros, some who cocooned themselves from the world - it's a fascinating portrait.

Personally I think it is all because of the movie first blood (Rambo I).

'And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of crap! Who are they to protest me?! Who are they?! Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!'

I'm serious, people in America started to seriously rethink how the people who served during vietnam were treated, before that it was, "Just following orders is no excuse." Afterwards people remembered these were just poor kids who had no choice.

I hope this mess ends soon and these poor soldiers come home.

Wait, some the British guy was fruity, so what, there's no shame in being fruity.

I haven't read all of the comments yet, so this may have been already mentioned:

Although it is a good thing that Bush did go to see the troops on such an important day to give thanks, in the end I see this as yet another manufactured photo op, like the earlier aircraft carrier one. Why does he refuse to show his support for the families of the soldiers who paid the ultimate price by attending the arrival of the coffins back into the U.S.; or even allowing the press to see the bodies of said heroes return home?

"In today's news, President Bush surprised the troops by going to Iraq. Security stated that the trip was unannounced, so that the troops would not have time to find heavier rocks to throw at the commander-in-chief. Bush was quoted as saying 'Our boys may not be able to have cranberries and stuffing this year, but damnit, they'll sure as hell have a turkey for Thanksgiving!'"

-Fake news

"a total lack of condemnation of the people who are over there"

Would that it were true. There is a small but noisy contingent of war protestors (not peace activists--you can't cheer on the fascists in the "Iraqi Resistance" and still claim to be for peace) who are willing to openly hope for harm to U.S. forces. The reluctance of the genuine peace activists to tell these parasites to take a hike is one reason why they aren't doing well with the public at large.

(I'm reminded of an incident years ago when a gay rights march was split by internal debate over whether or not to let NAMBLA participate. Some thought it wrong to exclude any group when the theme was, after all, tolerance. Others, quite correctly I think, pointed out that one can still exclude frikkin PEDOPHILES without having to think too hard about it).

But Peter is right that society no longer gives any approval to the sort of knee jerk anti-military attitudes that once flourished.

I wonder which candidate will receive the most votes from those in the armed forces?

Why does he refuse to show his support for the families of the soldiers who paid the ultimate price by attending the arrival of the coffins back into the U.S.; or even allowing the press to see the bodies of said heroes return home?

Let me preface my response to this by saying I was very much against the war in Iraq and have not been very happy with the Bush administration since the so-called "end" of the war.

But allowing the press to view bodies of dead soldiers? Exactly what would be the point of that? They're dead and they shouldn't be. I think that's all we need to know. Broadcasting pictures of their bodies would, in my opinion, do nothing but give the same stigma to the anti-war movement that the more extreme elements of the pro-life movement has enjoyed.

I mean look at the rhetoric against the war, it's often deeply cynical, and arrogant often acting as if those who support the war have no idea what they are doing, that they somehow don't realize what war is, let alone why Iraq needed to be invaded.

When you disagree with someone, you generally say that they don't know what they're doing. That's not isolated to the anti-war movement. Just about anyone, anywhere, feels the same towards someone who disagrees with them. That's just part of the back-and-forth. If you think you're right, then you speak as though you are, in fact, right. No real mystery here.

First off, well said Peter! One of the few positive trends I've noticed toward the military in recent years is the general public's willingness to support our troops, regardless of whether or not they think troops should be deployed. I hope that trend continues, regardless of the outcome of this war... no soldier should be unjustly villified for doing their duty.

Michileen: [A]llowing the press to view bodies of dead soldiers? Exactly what would be the point of that? I don't think MarvelFan literally meant opening the caskets and taking pictures of bodies (at least, I hope he didn't). I've heard (and I admit I can't back this up with a specific instance) that when the bodies are returned to the States, sometimes the press won't be allowed in to shoot the caskets being carried off-plane, talk to the family as the bodies are being returned, etc. I don't know whether this is a security or a family privacy issue, but there are quite a few valid reasons why the military wouldn't want the press around when bodies are returned.

On the whole, I thought Bush's Thanksgiving surprise was a good move for him, personally and politically... he got to meet and greet the troops his executive decisions have put in the line of fire (which was a decent and honorable gesture) and he gets to head off any negative comments from Democrats like "he'll send troops to Iraq, but he'd never go there himself!" I don't know if it's a fair tactic to accuse Bush of making the trip just to gain some political credit, because I think he honestly cares about the welfare of our troops. Besides, after that carrier landing fiasco, who would take any kind of attempt to turn a support visit into a pro-Bush moment seriously? The man more-or-less permanently shot his sincerity in the foot with that one.

That OTHER John Byrne

Me: The man more-or-less permanently shot his sincerity in the foot with that one.

...perhaps 'credibility' would be a better word than 'sincerity' in this instance... Apologies for the double-post.

tOjb

As anybody saying this "Secret Trip to Iraq" was a photo-op - I have to say: who cares if it was? It ended up helping the troops more than we probably know - with invigorated spirit

This was a good move - photo-op or not. I'm very proud of what Bush did.

I know it is commonly believed that anti-war folks spit on returning soldiers, and it may even have happened. How many of those who are talking about this actually experienced it (either are vets who were spat upon, are protesters who did the spitting, or are bystanders who were personally present when such an incident occurred)? How many are repeating something they've heard? (I know that many of us have heard it so often it sometimes feels like we've experienced it, but that's the power of the conservative media for you.)

I was an anti-war activist in the 1960s and 1970s, and I neither spat upon any veterans nor had any desire to do so. The people I associated with were interested in reaching out to those who were in the armed forces, not insulting or scapegoating them. What I recall are coffeehouses being established near army bases, counseling programs to let enlisted people know what their rights were, concern for casualties on all sides.

As a pacifist, I would have preferred if there were more people who felt war and killing were wrong, but I had (and continue to have) respect for those who believe differently. It was not (and is not) the soldiers who put their lives on the line that I feel anger toward.

There were a number of hot-heads in the anti-war movement (as there have been and continue to be in any movement, left or right). I suspect, though, that if soldiers were spat upon it was likely not by anti-war protesters so much as *anti-imperialist* protesters (Marxist types who opposed the US as an imperialist power and thus wanted the US to lose). Such folks were few in number but more colorful (and thus more visible, more likely to get picked up by a media that was hostile to protesters, and more likely to stick in people's memories later) than the vastly larger number of anti-war folks who did not view soldiers with contempt.

There were hundreds of anti-war songs that came out of the '60s. Some of them are openly sympathetic to soldiers -- Holly Near's "GI Movement", circa 1972, from her first album Hang In There, for example. None of the ones that come to mind -- Tom Paxton's "Willing Conscript", Phil Ochs' "I Ain't Marching Any More" and "The War Is Over", Pete Seeger's "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy", etc. -- seem contemptuous of soldiers. In contrast, I can think of a much-loved anti-war song, "Draft Dodger Rag", which is openly contemptuous of draft dodgers. (I have versions of it by Pete Seeger, Phil Ochs, and the Chad Mitchell Trio).

Can anyone cite me a speech in which anti-war folks encouraged spitting on soldiers? A magazine article? A song? A story? Anything? I know of fictional examples, but no real ones.

The Vietnam veterans got treated shabbily, on that I heartily agree. They were sent over to fight a war by politicians who lied to them, misused them, put their physical and mental health in jeopardy, and then brushed them aside. That really happened, and often enough to be worth noting. And that could very well happen again.

another big difference between vietnam & iraq is that we do not see attrocities being carried out by allied troops on a day to day basis in the media. remember back in the day there was a deluge of horrific pictures of "brave" GI mowing down "innocent" peasants, in the fight to stop the spead of the evil commies and their evil empire of evil.

yeah hurling abuse at traumatised vets still coming down from there army rations was wrong, after all they just pulled the trigger the politicans are the ones who decided to fire.

now if we were seeing images of burning iraqi 12 year old girls fleeing from allied soildes at ten o'clock everynight what would we think of thoses soilders

baby killers? heroes? pawns? victims?.

today we are not seeing images like that,is this because they are not happening or because were just not been shown them happening?

i don't know the answer to that one but i do know that vietnam was lost not on the battlefield but on the homefront were poor media management led to the loss of public support, and sometimes governments learn from their mistakes so hence no body bags at six o'clock.

in closing going right off topic...

In Northern Ireland elections announced today the Unionist(wish to remain part of uk) party DUP has just become the largest party in NI. There main policy of note is there rejection of the "good friday (peace) agreement" and there refusal to even to talk to Sinn Fein the main nationalist (wish to see a united ireland)party.

meanwhile the two parties that helped bring about the peace process the UUP & the SDLP both lost seats quiet badly

three cheers for democratic free elections. Coming soon to a country near you.

I am NO George Bush fan, but I really liked what he did on Thanksgiving. Granted, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but I do think this was a very cool thing for him to do. Now let's get the mission wrapped up, and get our troops home!

Afterwards people remembered these were just poor kids who had no choice.

Which, we should note, is a difference between Vietnam and Iraq. There were no U.S. draftees in Iraq. The people who are soldiers now have chosen to be soldiers, have chosen to sacrifice their own will in such matters to the government. And frankly, that makes it more reasonable to hold them responsible for their actions. These are almost all folks who signed up after 'Nam was over, many were born after that war had ended, and (should history have been better taught in the schools) they should have known that they would be involved in morally questionable efforts.

This is not to say that any individual soldier should be held responsible for the actions of the entire army. It would be nice, however, if someone could serve in our military without having reasonable expectation of being put into morally questionable usage. An invasion like that of Iraq should have the repercussion of making people less likely to enlist in the military, less likely to be willing to drop bombs on someone just because someone else told them to.

I give props to Bush for having the guts to go. Say what you want about him at least he supports our troops. Personally, I wouldnt careless if they gave Iraq back to Uncle Sddam tomorrow.

peter david said something good about the president! Hey everybody look!

and for those talking about it being nothing but a photo op...shut the f^ck up you morons. He couldn't do anything to please you anyways.

And even if it is, the soldiers loved it. I have friends that have been over in Iraq and they were thrilled to see him on the abe lincoln even if it was "just a stunt"

What Bush did is something called "Leadership", same with the carrier landing. Sure, it gives the democrats something to bitch and moan about (photo op!, photo op!), but to the troops, it means everything.

Thinks about it. For those here that have jobs, and don't work at home, would you respect the boss more if they hid in their office, or came out and met the people working for him/her?

I grew up in a military town, and although we didn't have the huge protests, I heard stories from GI's that were screamed at and spit on when they returned from Vietnam.

MarvelFan:

Why does he refuse to show his support for the families of the soldiers who paid the ultimate price by attending the arrival of the coffins back into the U.S.; or even allowing the press to see the bodies of said heroes return home?

Why in the hell does the press need to see bodies returning home? It's no secret that soldiers have died. The soldiers names and units and hometowns are released to the media. Let the press talk to the families and seek permission from them to photograph the funerals.

Nat Gertler:

It would be nice, however, if someone could serve in our military without having reasonable expectation of being put into morally questionable usage.

No, what would be nice is that our current all volunteer military enlistees read and understood all of the paperwork they are signing, before swearing their oath. What part of "joining the military" and "risk of going to war" are they finding confusing. I'm sick of these people that sign up, then bitch and complain that they are being called up. "I just signed up for the college benefits". Guess what, those rewards sometimes come with risk. No one wants to go to war, but when someone volunteers, it's hard to feel sorry for them.

Well said, Peter. I for one think I am in a minority, in that I support our troop, their mission, AND the current administration. Like it or not, the whole mess in Iraq was due to the US kowtowing to the UN in the 90's. The country had a responsibility to go in and finish what was started.

Moving on, I saw at least one reference to Bush declaring the war "over". No such thing happened. Bush declared an end to "major combat", which was accurate. Allied forces had taken the capitol of the opponent. The opposing military units had been all but obliterated. Enemy attacks come in hit-and-run raids by an (when compared to an actual military command and control structure) unorganized force. Entire brigades of allied forces are no longer moving through open desert in an advance of a line. Major combat IS over, but the war (the "clean-up" if you must) goes on.

As for Bush's Thanksgiving visit to the troops being called a photo-op, let's look objectively at what happened. He planned a trip, without allowing it to be public knowledge. The enemy had no time to prepare an attack against our Commander-in-Chief. There was not a photo-op, but more the president just wanting the chance to meet with the guys on the lines.

By direct comparison, take a look at NY Senator Hillary Clinton’s to the troops in Afghanistan. Obviously, the president's stunt overshadowed her trip. But where she went to be seen with some troops, sitting and being served dinner by one, the president was slinging hash with the privates on KP duty. In every sense of the word, he served the troops at Baghdad International, and was rightly cheered by them.

Some presidents in recent history would NEVER have gotten the response Bush got, NOR been as brazen as he was in just fulfilling a desire to sit and eat with his troops, or even arrive with a little flair, as he did by landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln for a visit.

I cannot fault his actions at all, nor can I dismiss them as mere photo-ops. We simply have a president who recognizes that he should be more accessible and liked by the segment of the population that has really gotten shafted the past decade or so: our military.

Unfortunately, there has been condemnation of the troops. I've already brought up Ted "Why we kill jarheads" Rall. Now Tim Robbins has written a play about what he thinks happened in Iraq:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104322,00.html

Money quote: "Robbins portrays journalists as Pentagon puppets, U.S. soldiers as thieves and killers of innocent women and children, and the Bush cabinet as war mongers willing to start a war to escape the negative publicity of the Enron scandal."

According to Fox, Marine Maj. Rich Doherty was called a Nazi by some in the audience.

There are a lot of things I've been thinking about in relation to Bush's trip to Iraq.

It WAS one of the few things he's done in Iraq which can be considered very smart.

But ...

Everyone on the news was talking about what courage the man had to go in. Hell; he was in Baghdad Airport, statistically the safest part of Iraq since the occupation began, the whole time!

And think back--was Clinton's Thanksgiving trip in 1999 to the troops in Macedonia hyped into the huge media-orgy this one was?

You know, both Nixon and Johnson visited the guys THEY were sending off to die needlessly, as well.

Further. I can't help but think that the trip was conceived--if quickly--to steal the thunder away from the trip to Afghanistan by Sens. Clinton and John Reed. After all, it was announced that they would be sharing Thanksgiving with the troops in Afghanistan, then heading to Iraq over the weekend.

But Reed and Clinton actually met with the Afghani councils, as well as with Afghani womens' groups and other civilians.

In contrast, Bush came in, gave a rah-rah to the US soldiers, and jetted out.

(Even when Bill Clinton went into Macedonia in '99, he made sure to meet with the war's refugees ...)

Weren't we talking a whole lot about the poor Iraqis and how desperately they needed freedom a while back? Way to show dedication to that ideal.

And to "Wolfknight," whose post is one or two above mine: Do you honestly think that, confronted with a middle-aged woman civilian, that the average soldier is going to do anything but treat her with deference? Strawman issue there.

Plus, if you'd care to cite a couple ways just how the military was "shafted" over the last decade, I'd like to see it. The military we now have was largely built--technology, manpower, organization--DURING that last decade. There have been few to no bills or changes introduced in the ways the Armed Forces are run and the technology they use in the Bush administration.

... except for one that I've read of--the supply lines to Iraq seem to be slow, and many of our men and women are serving with currently-substandard equipment such as flak jackets ...

And your "This was no photo-op" ...

I envy you your innocence. But not your blindness.

Think about it--the President of the United States snuck away from the Secret Service, whose most visible objective as a department is to protect him ... but he stopped to pick up members of the White House press corps.

It would have been MUCH cooler, MUCH more sincere-looking, and MUCH more effective, if he'd just TAKEN the Secret Service with him, DITCHED the press corps, and then let the news sink in after the fact. Imagine the reports that would have followed on the news: "Mister President! Why did you go to Iraq in such secrecy?" "Well, I just thought it was the right thing to do, and that the people who I wanted to see me there weren't you people in the press, but the brave men and women fighting over there. Now, we have more important things to talk about than some little trip I made ..."

Also, even if reporters DIDN'T find out or have it leaked to them right away, the military community's "jungle telegraph" would have had the news to bases around the world in a flash.

And imagine the impact that the "Dear Mom: You won't BELIEVE who I met last night at Base Camp!" letters would have had ...

Hey. That was awesome what Bush did. Glad the press were kept in the dark. It is disappointing hearing intelligent people act as thought they know his motives. You don't know his heart, you're not God, and you don't have a cosmic cube (I hope). I swear some people accuse Bush of thinking a certain way because that is how they think and when they accuse Bush they are telling us what they would have done.

As far ar arguing about the war in Iraq, I'll just say that to pull out now, would be far worse than anything else we did or could do. We got to deal with the situation as it is, not playing monday morning quarterback. I do agree with what George Washington said in his farewell address, that the US should stay out of wordly affairs. Unfortunately, both liberals and conservatives have rejected this notion. Liberals want the military to be a giant "Meals on wheals" for 3rd world nations and conservatives want to police the world.

Answer me this for all you Bush haters out there: what prez do you know of that would do what Bush just did during time of war??? Name One!!!! Didn't think you could. It's called giving the troops something uplifting in return for their hard work. THEY fight for our freedoms. Anti-war people make me sick. The bash everything, when in reality it is the Troops THAT FIGHT for your rights to shoot your mouth off. Think about it. and before you pounce on me: I am neither a Dem nor Repub but, the least thing Americans can do is support the troops and to hell with the politics.

(my 2 cents)

Call me cynical, but I find the timing of the announcement to be suspect. He chose to go in a way that he could control the news cycle and have nothing else reported for the next day. The Bushies are underestimated, but are extremely calculating politicians.

Dee wanted to know of any President who "would do what Bush just did during time of war".

Dwight Eisenhower.

As President-elect in 1952, he went to Korea and spoke with not only Korean leaders and US military commanders but also soldiers in the front-line units.

I do find the "support the troops" line of reasoning a bit silly, since that "support" seems implicitly to demand our silence in questioning the "wisdom" of our political leaders in sending off those troops. Is it so difficult to understand that someone can protest the government's actions without it being turned against the frontline troops?

Personally, I think Bush only did this because of Harvey Fierstein's 11/26 New York Times op-ed piece--Harvey as Mrs Santa Claus in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Maybe Bush thought Fierstein was being a little too serious in his op-ed piece and had to do something drastic. (Let's face it--any other time, the Macy's Parade is THE main news story on Thanksgiving.)

I'd say that trying to keep the troops from needlessly being killed is supporting the troops.

On the other hand, Bush and his folks have been cutting military benefits. It takes an awful lot of spooning of corn to make up for that.

Anti-war people make me sick. The bash everything, when in reality it is the Troops THAT FIGHT for your rights to shoot your mouth off. Think about it.

Yeah, I do think about it.

Think about this: A person can be against the war and still be support the troops.

I know it's a concept that's a bit more complicated than corn beef hash or pro-wrestling, but it really isn't too hard to grasp.

I was against going into Iraq (at least at that stage - I think it was far from being the last resort situation it was advertsied as).

Equally, to pull out now would be madness and have many in the area saying "Great, they abandonded us again!"

But make no mistake. Vietnam or not, all you have to do to see how NOT under control this situation is, is to compare the speeches made at this time last year and at regular intervals since. You'd be amazed how retro-fitting and contradictory they are in relation to each other.

Which should tell you something.

John

BrakYeller: I don't think MarvelFan literally meant opening the caskets and taking pictures of bodies (at least, I hope he didn't).

Correct. Limiting the press from viewing all aspects of the results of this war, such as the arrival of the coffins back home and the presentation of the flags to the family members, seems wrong to me, and I have seen press members from both sides of the issue say so.

So nice to see that education in the country is allowing so many people to read without bothering with all the messy, useless bits such as comprehension ...

"Answer me this for all you Bush haters out there: what prez do you know of that would do what Bush just did during time of war??? Name One!!!! Didn't think you could."

Eisenhower, Korea, 1952 (as President-elect).

Johnson, Vietnam, 1966.

Johnson again, Vietnam, 1967.

Nixon, Vietnam, 1969.

Clinton, Kosovo, 1999.

Antiwar people make you sick, you say. Well, that's funny. Ever see someone die? Ever see someone gutshot? Ever see the mess that shaped charges can make out of a human body? Ever see bodies left to rot by the side of a road?

These things are all horrible; these things are all sick-making. Now imagine that these things were happening and that there was no good reason for it. Guess what? You don't have to imagine.

What makes me sick are those who directly contravene the will of this country's founders by trying to quash dissenting views, and who then talk about how great our country is; how important our freedom is.

What makes me sick are those who slavishly go along with immoral and wrong acts because "He's the President and we have to support him." Uh-uh. That's why we got rid of a king in the first place.

What makes me sick are those who profess--loudly, belligerently, and at every turn--that they "support the troops," but have no problem with sending said troops off to die needlessly, all the while cutting veterans' benefits, undersupplying the troops in the field (go ask a member of the troops about the obsolete Vietnam-era flak jackets they were issued which can't even stop small-arms fire, or about the UN-armored Humvees they are using--or ask the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee about the letter sent him [signed by over a hundred members of the House of Representatives] earlier this month asking why our troops have substandard equipment), and showing little care for the troops outside of photo ops and lip service.

[posted by Eric: "It is disappointing hearing intelligent people act as thought they know his motives. You don't know his heart, you're not God, and you don't have a cosmic cube (I hope). I swear some people accuse Bush of thinking a certain way because that is how they think ..."]

I agree that people should not be so certain that they know what is in another person's mind.

I find it ironic, though, that some of the pundits complaining most loudly about people presuming to know Bush's motives seemed quite willing to let us know authoritatively the evil motives behind Clinton's actions, Tom Daschle's actions, etc. Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk show hosts do that almost daily.

If it offends you when people attribute base motives to people you agree with, keep an ear out for when it is done to people you may disagree with.

When Republicans only complain when this kind of mind-reading is done to Republicans, and Democrats only complain when this kind of mind-reading is done to Democrats, both sides are likely to brush off the complaints they hear as mere partisanship. When Bill O'Reilly starts condemning Rush Limbaugh for mind-reading liberals, and Molly Ivins starts condemning Michael Moore for mind-reading conservatives, people may begin actually paying attention.

By the way: the idea you expressed that people who attribute crass motives to Bush's actions are just doing it because that's the way they think... Keep in mind that what you just said about their not knowing what's in Bush's heart is equally true about your not knowing what is in their hearts.

[posted by Jim Burdo: "Now Tim Robbins has written a play about what he thinks happened in Iraq:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104322,00.html

Money quote: "Robbins portrays journalists as Pentagon puppets, U.S. soldiers as thieves and killers of innocent women and children, and the Bush cabinet as war mongers willing to start a war to escape the negative publicity of the Enron scandal."]

Instead of getting upset about Robbins' play based on how Fox News characterizes it, wouldn't it make more sense to get upset about it based on actually seeing a performance, or at least reading the script of the play for yourself?

It's possible the play actually is exactly as Fox portrays it. It's also possible it isn't. I'd prefer to get upset with Robbins for what Robbins says and get upset with Fox for what Fox says.

If what Fox says leads you to believe that Robbins has said or done something that would upset you, by all means track it down, check it out, and then get upset with Robbins.

Isn't that the same consideration you would like people to give to, say, George W Bush?

Um ... I only put a few words and sentences in bold ... something wonky with the site?

Maybe this will fix the Bold thing.

Is that better? I hope so.

I think it was a very good idea for Bush to go to Iraq, and do it the way he did it. It was a nice thing for him to do, and it was a good move politically. Which motivation was the driving force behind the trip, I can't say, but probably both rationales were considered (along with others we may not know about).

I don't trust the man, and I trust the people he's surrounded himself with even less. However, I can't fault him for this. It was a decent thing to do, whatever his motivations.

Rob

(crossing my fingers to unbold this suckah...)

Ah, nuts...

Rob

Answer me this for all you Bush haters out there: what prez do you know of that would do what Bush just did during time of war??? Name One!!!! Didn't think you could.

Since you're actually asking us to assign motivations to people we've never met(as you haven't), I'll volunteer Dwight D. Eisenhower. He not only would be there, he WAS there.

It's called giving the troops something uplifting in return for their hard work. THEY fight for our freedoms. Anti-war people make me sick. The bash everything, when in reality it is the Troops THAT FIGHT for your rights to shoot your mouth off.

You're absolutely right. They fight for the right to discent and John Ashcroft fights to take it away. Do I have to quote him in front of congress again?

Think about it. and before you pounce on me: I am neither a Dem nor Repub but, the least thing Americans can do is support the troops and to hell with the politics.

Problem isn't those of us against Bush bringing politics into it. It's his adminstration that does it. Or did I miss where he went to visit the troops without the press to carefully photograph him?

Michael Norton

(my 2 cents)

Can anyone cite me a speech in which anti-war folks encouraged spitting on soldiers? A magazine article? A song? A story? Anything? I know of fictional examples, but no real ones.**

Nova Land

The first job I had out of college was with the KCPD crime lab. My supervisor there arrived in Vietnam the day of the Tet Offfensive. The guy sitting next to him in the helicopter was shot in the head as they arrived and he had to take his place (he was a pilot). I can't imagine how horrible that must have been for him.

Anyway, he said he was berated and spit on when he returned from duty a few years later. People shouting "Baby Killer" and being just generally bastards. He said it was one of the worst experiences of his life, to have just barely survived the war to come back and have people bitching at him just cuz he was drafted and did his duty.

Along with this story, is one about a family friend who was sent to Vietnam right out of high school. He came home to jeers and sneers. I was just a kid, but I sat hidden from view, at the top of the stairs, as he told my brothers what I consider to be horror stories about his tour of duty and then about landing at Lambert Field (in St. Louis) and having people throw trash at him and yell "Baby killer!".

Perhaps not all anti-war activists at the time were jerks to the soldiers, but here are two examples of real people who experienced harsh treatment from such activists upon returning from Vietnam.

Soldiers are deployed by people in power. As long as soldiers honorably perform their duty (i.e. no heinous crimes against non-combatants, no going along with genocide), it's the people in power who should be held accountable and brought to task by those who disagree with war.

It's like people who bitch out the Customer Service guy at Dell because they didn't get the right computer they ordered. The Customer Service guy didn't screw up the order, so they gain nothing by my making him have a lousy day. Same with the soldier. Folks should complain to the guy who started the war, not the one forced to fight it.

Mr. Berman (several posts above, and one or two behind my last post):

The military, over the last decade, was shafted in that they had MORE budget cuts in that time than virtually any other time of "peace". They were signed over to act under the authority (such as it can laughably be called) of the UN. They were all but abandoned, and subsequently dragged through the streets by thugs with inferior arms, and put in harm's way, against the will of other countries, whose opinions we are now expected to value above all else, in what have been called "humanitarian missions", where no enemy was clearly defined, and use of force was not permitted unless fired upon first. That is not how a military is to be run.

Yes, advances in technology were made, but it doesn't stop there. Since, as you say, no bills were passed, all the good parts of the military are either Bush's credit, or his predecessor's, just as are all the bad aspects of the military, such as poor equipment or supply lines.

As for advancements in in military tech since Bush has been commander-in-chief, I can cite two examples. One: the Predator UAV. Use of such drones for anything other than reconnaissance was not done in the past decade, and use of the UAV as an offensive weapons platform has made a difference in combat. Just ask any soldier who has not had to die in a firefight trying to kill or capture an enemy who was moving from one safehouse to another.

Two: The Massive Ordinance Air Burst weapon. The MOAB was tested after Bush authorized such action, not before.

Hillary Clinton is no mere "middle-aged civilian woman", so your "strawman" comment has no real bearing. If my mother were treated with simple civility, I could understand it. But Hillary is supposed to be a major player in American Politics. Chances are good that she met with some guys who are from NY, and as such, her constituents.

For someone who has the "guts" or "clout" to go on a trip to visit the troops, you would think the response from those who she is having Thanksgiving dinner with INSTEAD of her family, would have been a little more than the minimal "deference" one would expect.

Like it or not, Bush is popular with the military. Sure, there will always be those who complain, but that happens with ANY president. But, Bush is more popular with the military as a whole than his immediate predecessor ever was.

I am not one to say that Bush can do no wrong. One needs only look at the whole debacle with the steel tariffs to see that he has made mistakes as president.

But to blame him for the "mess" in Iraq, is absurd. The whole "mess" could have been avoided if conventional methods of military force were used. But rather than toss bombs indiscriminately, and blast aspirin factories, Bush used precision warfare, something all but unheard of in previous conflicts. Civilian casualties were kept to a minimum, and that was a direct result of planning from the Bush administration, not any technology, training, or numbers from a previous decade.

On a last point.

Do you REALLY think that the president traveled with NO Secret Service? Talk about blindness. Sure, he traveled without his usual caravan of agents, but they were they ready to jump in in a second, if needed. Just because you don't see them, do not assume a lack of agents (I say this with a reasonable amount of authority. I know a Secret Service agent, and aside from a minor disruption, he told me the president was under full guard 99% of the entire "stunt").

Sorry about the double post:

Can someone explain what it means to "support the troops"?

The troops are fighting and dying in a foreign land. agree with the reasons or not, they are killing there to. Such is war.

Since they are fighting a war, killing and dying, how can you be anti-war, but pro-troop?

If you are anti-war, but "support the troops", and the troops volunteered to fight in wars, what exactly are you supporting?

Wolfknight: Civilian casualties were kept to a minimum, and that was a direct result of planning from the Bush administration, not any technology, training, or numbers from a previous decade.

Luigi Novi: How high were civilian casualties, anyway? I heard it was in the thousands. Is this true?

Wolfknight: Can someone explain what it means to "support the troops"? The troops are fighting and dying in a foreign land. agree with the reasons or not, they are killing there to. Such is war. Since they are fighting a war, killing and dying, how can you be anti-war, but pro-troop?

Luigi Novi: By feeling that the war is wrong without placing the blame for it on the soldiers, because they’re not the ones who make the decision to start it.

Wolfknight: If you are anti-war, but "support the troops", and the troops volunteered to fight in wars, what exactly are you supporting?

Luigi Novi: You’re supporting the troops by essentially saying that even though you’re against the war, you harbor no ill feelings against them because they’re not the ones in power who make the major decisions regarding it, but young boys, often poor, who are used by the government for ends that the protestor feels are wroing, and who have no say in where they’re sent to.

I believe we had an entire thread on this point earlier this year.

There's only ONE big difference between Vietnam and Iraq?

Thank you for your response, Wolfknight. I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

As for the Predator UAV: "In May 1998 General Atomics was awarded a Block 1 Upgrade contract to expand the capabilities of the Predator system."

This was to make the Predator into the MQ-1 Hunter/Killer. The intention to make it more than just a recon drone was put forth under the previous administration, so it doesn't matter when it was first used as a missile delivery system; the intent was there before the new millennium.

As for the MOAB, nicknamed the "Mother of All Bombs," I'm reasonably certain that Dynetics would have gotten the contract before 2001. Of course, that sort of thing is hard to substantiate; military secrecy, after all. But as it had been in development for years, Bush's authorization isn't all that relevant.

(Note to everyone else--the MOAB, currently the largest non-conventional bomb in our arsenal, is basically an improvement of the Daisy Cutter, which we used in Vietnam. Both are bombs designed to be dropped from a large plane, such as a C-130 cargo hauler. They're huge, and are filled with a mix, 80% TNT and the rest is, I believe, aluminum powder and slurry. [The Daisy Cutter used less aluminum and more slurry explosive along with ammonium nitrate.] Both bombs have been incorrectly referred to as "fuel-air-bombs," [FAE] but they're not. An FAE, before hitting the ground, sprays out a large cloud of aerosolized fuel, then ignites it with a small explosive, causing a fireball which literally sucks all the air out of the blast area. The surrounding air then rushes in to fill the vaccuum, resulting in a large concussive force.

The MOAB and Daisy Cutter are different--they simply produce a huge explosive blast. The improvements that the MOAB has over the Daisy Cutter is that it has a limited amount of steerability, and a GPS guidance system, whereas the Daisy Cutter was just dropped. Another incorrect report on the MOAB is that it uses no parachute--but this is just propaganda. If you watched footage of the highly-publicized test done at Eglin Air Force Base in March, a military observer can be clearly heard saying, "There--There's the parachute.")

As for Clinton's Afghanistan visit, the "deference" to which I referred was the reason that she was not seen serving the troops dinner; it was not a description of the reaction she and Senator Reed received.

You say that this conflict has been fought with precision; that civilian casualties have been kept to a minimum.

You may want to go to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm and look at the incident-by-incident accounting of civilian deaths they provide. They only publish after sources have been checked, and they will not publish any incident without first having the story from at least two accredited sources. Also, they show the sources for each incident, so you can judge whether or not you think the sources are biased. At the present writing, they show qa MINIMUM of about eight thousand and a maximum of about ten thousand civilians killed. That doesn't sound all that "precision" to me.

I'd argue your point about military budget cuts during the Nineties, but we're already taking up too much space here.

And as for your "Do you REALLY think that the president traveled with NO Secret Service?"

The first reports had said that he had shucked the Secret Service at his ranch, Subsequent reports seem to show that he was not under their protection, but was instead under military protection. The military, much as I respect them, are not trained as crisis intervention specialists (except for a few small outfits). The Secret Service are. As such, I don't care if he was constantly surrounded by twenty soldiers with M-16s cocked. They are not trained in all eventualities, whereas the Secret Service (and damn, it would be easier to refer to them by their initials, but that would give the wrong impression) are.

Lastly.

You asked, "How can you be against the war but support the troops?"

That's easy. Let me give an anaologous example. I'm for the police; I have friends on the force and give to the various organizations (though my heart is more with the firefighters). But if the police are ordered to make stops based on racial profiling, I am against that. If the police are ordered to, say, use tear gas on a peaceful protest, I am against that. If the police are discovered to be using illegal procedures of any sort, be it in interrogation or in investigation, then I am against that. But I am still FOR the police, both in the collective sense and in the individual.

Such it is with the troops and the "war". I am for the troops, but I feel they have been issued immoral, illegal, overly dangerous, and just plain STUPID marching orders. It is the policy I am against. Not the men and women forced to carry it out.

They are not fighting for our freedom; they are not fighting for our protection, they are not fighting to avenge the horror of September 11th. In addition, they are not fighting for the freedom of the IRAQIS, either. They are fighting because Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others have had their eye on Iraq for four or five years now. And I find that obscene, and a dereliction of the duty which the people in power have to the troops who serve under them.

But to blame him for the "mess" in Iraq, is absurd. The whole "mess" could have been avoided if conventional methods of military force were used. But rather than toss bombs indiscriminately, and blast aspirin factories, Bush used precision warfare, something all but unheard of in previous conflicts. Civilian casualties were kept to a minimum

To a minimum? "Thousands" was a minimum? Seems to me that the various plans that involved not invading Iraq would have reduced that number severely. Bush pushed for the invasion of Iraq, misled the American people in order to gain their support, made the final decision to go ahead (after the Congress had ceded their responsibilty in the matter), and supported the "shock and awe" tactics of trying to terrorize the Iraqis into submission via bombing a major population center. It would be absurd to absolve him of responsibility in this situation.

And for those who don't understand: if the folks who were anti-war had held sway, hundreds of American troops would not be dead today. 437 American fatalities to date. Wanting them to have been spared from being put unnecessarily in harms way is indeed supporting the troops.

Seems to me that the various plans that involved not invading Iraq would have reduced that number severely. Bush pushed for the invasion of Iraq, misled the American people in order to gain their support, made the final decision to go ahead (after the Congress had ceded their responsibilty in the matter), and supported the "shock and awe" tactics of trying to terrorize the Iraqis into submission via bombing a major population center. It would be absurd to absolve him of responsibility in this situation.

The problem with this argument is that it willfully ignores the reality of life under Saddam's despotism. To have left him in power would have left him free to kill, rape, and torture many thousands more of Iraqis than died in the war. If the lives lost as a result of the war are Bush's responsibility, then so must be the many more that have been saved as a result of it.

And for those who don't understand: if the folks who were anti-war had held sway, hundreds of American troops would not be dead today. 437 American fatalities to date. Wanting them to have been spared from being put unnecessarily in harms way is indeed supporting the troops.

And many thousands of Iraqis would be being killed, raped, and tortured by Saddam and his regime. His ouster, and the war that led to it, were humanitarian and liberal acts. It's depressing that so many people who would call themselves liberals are so blinded by their sputtering, impotent fury at George W. Bush that they can't let themselves see it.

This is officially absurd.

Yes, nearly 500 Americans died in the liberation of a country. That many died in gaining a beachhead at Normandy in less than a minute.

By the most liberal count, nearly 15,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Millions died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yet there are few who look at history, and look at these events, and say that the US should have acted differently. That the US should have held back, and allowed the madness of an oppressive regime and the allies of said regime to continue unchecked.

By your own logic and thoughts, war should be neat, clean, and result in hugs, kisses, and heartfelt “I’m Sorry”s all around, with no one dying.

Grow up. That is not now, nor will it ever be, how the world operates.

Based, number for number, per capita, or any other way you can count it, the overthrow of Saddam’s regime, and liberation of Iraq, cost fewer lives than any other similar war, fought for any reason, in history. Fewer civilians than expected, and many fewer American soldiers than expected, died in Operation: Iraqi Freedom. But rather than look at that and be pleased with how your military performed, you criticize and say that too many died.

Sorry. People die. The world is a dangerous place. Get used to it, or don’t. Things will not stop because you get squeamish. The best you can do is look at how advanced things have become, that so few die in conflict, and be impressed that it is better than it was.

It seems that many of you, like the UN, get cold feet when reality comes home to roost. People die in war. That is why it should be avoided, but not shied away from.

Sometimes distasteful things need to be done to bring noble results. To avoid doing them, because you wish to avoid distasteful things, is no better than saying that Hitler should have been left alone, because some innocent German civilians would have died in his apprehension or death.

Sometimes the greater good requires loss of life, be it soldier or civilian. We can only hope that the numbers are kept as low as they were in Op: Iraqi Freedom.

What's absurd is the number of people on both sides trying to spin this. Did Bush do it partially for a photo-op? Sure. Did he do it to show Sen. Clinton up? Maybe so.

All I can say is: Be quiet - the troops loved it.

I am under no illusions about the good politics this plays. However, I don't think anyone can stand back and objectively say he did this solely - or even mainly - for political reasons. The primary reason was a morale boost - something that was desperately needed.

He did good.

Ah. Now we get to the meat of it. It WASN'T--as we were told again and again by the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, and the National Security Adviser--that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It WASN'T that he was tied into terrorism.

Rather, it was about a humanitarian mission to overthrow an evil regime. Fine.

Then was Saddam not quite so evil when Donald Rumsfeld, serving as envoy to Iraq in the 1980s under the Reagan Administration, met with him to open diplomatic and trade relations?

Was he not such a bad guy when we sold him (against the will of Congress but overruled by the executive branch) helicopters, chemicals, weaponry and equipment even after it was reported that he was bombing and gassing the Kurds?

Was he merely misunderstood when major U.S. oil companies did business with him until the very day of the first Gulf War?

Was he just an okay fella when Rumsfeld, after deciding a run for President in '88, told the Chicago Tribune that one of his biggest achievements was successfully opening relations with Iraq?

And was he just the victim of bad press when Rumsfeld and other people representing oil concerns, met cordially with him after the Gulf War, even up to 1998?

And if we were so concerned about the freedom and safety of those under his regime, then why, just after the Gulf War, did we exhort the Kurds in the north to rise up against Hussein, only to desert them totally when Saddam went after them with his inevitable retribution?

You ask me, we should have rescinded the Executive Orders against assassination for political means (one by Carter, two by Reagan), established a Covert Action Oversight Committee made up of members of the House and Senate and representatives of the various intel agencies and the State Department to deliberate over the approval of such assassinations, and sent in SEAL Team Six or a contract team of assassins to take out Saddam and his sons.

(After all, it's not as if we don't attempt to contravene those XOs--remember Ortega? Castro?--and it's not as if searching out the head of a sovereign country and attempting to bomb the shit out of his locatioon isn't assassination, pure and simple.)

Posted by ajk: "Soldiers are deployed by people in power. As long as soldiers honorably perform their duty (i.e. no heinous crimes against non-combatants, no going along with genocide), it's the people in power who should be held accountable and brought to task by those who disagree with war.

"It's like people who bitch out the Customer Service guy at Dell because they didn't get the right computer they ordered. The Customer Service guy didn't screw up the order, so they gain nothing by my making him have a lousy day. Same with the soldier. Folks should complain to the guy who started the war, not the one forced to fight it."

Well said! I strongly agree with you.

I am slightly wary of anecdotal (friend of a friend) evidence, since tales often get embellished in the telling. But while I am still dubious that spitting on returning vets was common, it is certainly possible that some such incidents occurred -- and even one such incident is one too many.

I'm anti-war, but not anti-soldier. The people I knew in the anti-Vietnam War movement would not have spit on veterans (nor tolerated such actions to be done, if they had been present), and the people I know in the anti-Iraq War movement feel the same way.

Covert assassination. What a great idea. Wonder why they didn't think of it.

Might have something to do with such a mission being too risky, no matter how SEAL Team Six is portrayed in the movies. Nah. Couldn't be that. MUST be political.

Explains why William the Great (D) tried it, and didn't toss cruise missiles around in Iraq.

I'm sure members of our military will be appreciative of comparisons to poorly trained people answering phones for Dell (I know the extent of the training, because I have done it on a third party basis).

The thought that you can support troops, but not what they do (kill Iraqi civilians and military), is to reduce our military to a bunch of thugs who only "follow orders". I guess trying anyone for war crimes is impossible, unless they are in leadership positions, because military troops are nothing more than Gestapo.

I'm sure many members of the military would rather be supported by someone who supports their commander-in-chief than by anyone who would hand them that holier-than-thou "You were just following orders, and therefore not responsible" crap.

The anti-Iraq War movement is nothing more than an anti-Bush groundswell, don't kid yourselves. When William the Great (D) launched attacks into a sovereign country (without prior approval from the UN, by the way, which is apparently a violation of international law), none of the anti-war voices were heard to say so much as "boo". When William said that Saddam was assembling and planned to use WMD, no one asked fro proof, and several in congress were ready to vote on allowing him broad war powers where Iraq was concerned.

Now Bush is doing all the same, and taking one additional step, moving in like he means business, all of the sudden, people are crying "foul". France expresses their dislike for American Bullheadedness. Germany is against military action (never mind that two world wars were fought because of Germany in less than a century).

Really, the only difference is the parenthetical letter behind the name of the president.

Funny how anti-war movements depend ENTIRLY on the agreement or disagreement with the guys calling the shots, isn't it?

Riiiight.

See, this is just another reson I will always use my full, real, name on the Internet. Because you can just go traipsing through USENET and see that I had rather the same objections to what we did in Serbia as I do to what we're doing in Iraq. Not that I would expect most to DO this, but at least *I* know that you could.

No matter if I voted for the guy or not, what we did and what we're doing is wrongo.

And by the way--you completely overlook the fact that I raised about the three Executive Orders in place which make it illegal for the U.S. to employ assassination for political means (though, admittedly, I misspoke and said that Carter was responsible for one when it was Ford who signed the first XO against it).

I used SEAL Team Six as an example because they're simply the most well-regarded and most mobile of our Spoecial Forces. I don't GO to movies, so I've no idea how they're portrayed.

And exactly how is "kill Iraqi civilians amnd military" a proper job description for our soldiers. Though civilian casualties are inevitable in battle, forces are supposed to do whatever they can to minimize civilian casualties.

Such as, say, NOT bomb a heavily populated city with little military value.

As we are talking about Americans who are antiwar, why bring France and Germany into it? Unless you're running out of strawmen, I mean; then it's all well and good.

Wolfknight: I'm sure members of our military will be appreciative of comparisons to poorly trained people answering phones for Dell

Luigi Novi: Nice Straw Man argument.

Obviously, any objective debater who read Alex Berman’s comment can see that he didn’t compare the members of the military to people answering phones for Dell, or their respective levels of training. He compared blaming the Dell customer service guy because you didn’t get the right computer to blaming soldiers for the wars that political leaders decide.

The discussion was essentially about how one can support the troops while being against the war, and you basically reduced it to putting words into another person’s mouth, even when you knew what his central point was, and even though he later used another analogy involving the police in his 11/30/2003 02:26 AM post, which did not involve mention of Dell Computer c.s. reps.

Wolfknight: The thought that you can support troops, but not what they do (kill Iraqi civilians and military), is to reduce our military to a bunch of thugs who only "follow orders". I guess trying anyone for war crimes is impossible, unless they are in leadership positions, because military troops are nothing more than Gestapo. I'm sure many members of the military would rather be supported by someone who supports their commander-in-chief than by anyone who would hand them that holier-than-thou "You were just following orders, and therefore not responsible" crap.

Luigi Novi: Apparently, despite the fact that you read Alex Berman’s comment about the Dell computer, you missed the one right above it why your hypothesis about war crimes doesn’t apply:

Soldiers are deployed by people in power. As long as soldiers honorably perform their duty (i.e. no heinous crimes against non-combatants, no going along with genocide), it's the people in power who should be held accountable and brought to task by those who disagree with war.

As Alex made clear, his explanation regarding being able to support the honorable people who choose to work in the military even when you disagree with where the political leaders decide to deploy them does not mean absolving them of culpability when they commit war crimes.

"I hope this mess ends soon and these poor soldiers come home."

With the exception of our monetary accounts, no 'soldier' (airman, marine, and sailor) is poor. It is completely voluntary and if anyone thinks an armed forces member is poor for that, then they are the ones that are poor for not realizing that serving a higher calling makes you rich beyond belief.

(quote) The problem with this argument is that it willfully ignores thereality of life under Saddam's despotism. To have left him in power would have left him free to kill, rape, and torture many thousands more of Iraqis than died in the war. If the lives lost as a result of the war are Bush's responsibility, then so must be the many more that have been saved as a result of it.(unquote)

Except for the minor detail that that was never the rationale for beginning hostilities and deploying troops.

If it were so, then (just off the top of the head) we should be doing the same in:

Congo

Burma (Myanmar)

China

North Korea

Cuba

The Sudan

Liberia

Tibet

Colombia

Bolivia

Peru

Paraguay

Fiji

Papua/New Guinea

Eritrea

Yemen

Mali

Uzbekistan

Tajikistan

Sri Lanka

and lots more.

Enforcing humanitarianism by gunpoint is an oxymoron. Inculcating Western values is not the job of the military - there are accredited agencies capable and trained for such (though in an often slow and imperfect manner).

Political and fiscal realiity merits choosing battles - it is a cold-hearted calculation, but there are international organizartions (and, no matter what, the U.S. is still to proverbial 800-lb. gorilla in the U.N.) that are specifically geared to dealing with these situations, with the proviso of having the backing of the international community.

whoop-de-doo- the 'coalition of the willing' includes 30 countries (such as Nauru, the ambassador of which expressed surprise to hear that his government had 'signed on.') That, in cold, hard numbers, equates that 160 counries (give or take a few) have not joined in.

As for the other argument above about the proportionality of casualties, based on the individual situation, terrain and weaponry deployed (a specious comparison to begin with) very recent examples that refute the premise would include the Falklands and Grenada.

"There were no U.S. draftees in Iraq. The people who are soldiers now have chosen to be soldiers, have chosen to sacrifice their own will in such matters to the government. And frankly, that makes it more reasonable to hold them responsible for their actions. These are almost all folks who signed up after 'Nam was over, many were born after that war had ended, and (should history have been better taught in the schools) they should have known that they would be involved in morally questionable efforts.

This is not to say that any individual soldier should be held responsible for the actions of the entire army."

This is posted with the thought that the military members have some sort of say so in what they will do or not do. There is no vote! The Commander in Chief makes an order, runs it by congress as needed, and then it goes to the pentagon, and then down through the chain of command from there. The military is here to support and defend the democracy, not be one. Get your facts strait.

"Vietnam-era flak jackets they were issued which can't even stop small-arms fire"

This statement should speak for itself. FLAK. Not Bullet proof. Flak vests are meant to stop pieces of schrapnel from exploding ordinance, not bullets. Not amount of vests or helmets will stop a direct hit from a bomb or any other large explosion.

**Wolfknight:

Germany is against military action (never mind that two world wars were fought because of Germany in less than a century).**

Excuse me for picking this rather small part of your post, but the rest of it has already been answered to by Mister Berman and Mister Novi, since I am a German myself however I was wondering what exactly your argument in the quoted sentence is? I have only been able to come up with two readings that could give a sliver of credibility to it:

1. The German people are warmongers, the two World Wars only serve as examples for that; therefore, Germans should be happy that there is a war, and instead of bitching that they aren't the ones who started it they should jump on the bandwagon. (This reasoning is obviously bogus, and I don't honestly think that that was what you meant.)

2. Since the German people have been the reason for two World Wars, they have no right to speak out against war anymore.

The latter one seems to be more likely to be what you meant. In my opinion, however, it is as stupid as the first one. Don't you think it is possible for a people to learn from mistakes? The Anti-War protestors in Germany were pretty much all born after the war, therefore no direct blame for it can be laid on them. They are, however, responsible that something like that may never happen again. This has left many Germans with a deep-rooted aversion to war. To them, war can only be justified as ultima ratio, as the absolutely last step. I won't deny that the anti-war movement in Germany also has deeply anti-American tendencies, and that there are few Germans who like President Bush. But in most protestors, if you take away their anti-Americanism, they would still take to the street because they believe that the war was unjustified.

You might wonder why I used the nomer "they" although I am, as I already said, German myself. It is because I believe that it is a good thing that Saddam was driven out of Baghdad, and that the war actually saved more lives than it cost (remember the 500.000 children who died anually because of the sanctions in place against Iraq). I do, however, also believe that

a) Bush went in for the wrong reasons. I don't believe he went in for WMD's, or because he really believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. I do not believe that he went in mainly for the oil (though I guess he saw it as a nice extra). And least of all I believe that he went in for the people of Iraq. I believe that he went in to destroy a regime that he saw as a threat to American interests in the Middle east.

b) that they totally botched the post-war period. I mean, look only at the fact that during the riots in Baghdad after Saddam's ousting the only building protected by American soldiers was the oil ministry, while many unique cultural treasures where stolen from the museums. And I am not saying that this is proof that America only cared about Iraq's oil; I am saying that it looked like that to the world. I don't know how the reconstruction of Iraq and winning the friendship of the Iraqi people could have been done better, but then again, I'm not planning on invading a country. I guess the American government should have made better plans though.

This post has gotten a lot longer than it was supposed to be, I guess I just had to write all this stuff from my chest. Sorry for getting off-topic (or at least not strictly on-topic)

Benjamin Gaede

[originally posted by Wolfknight: The anti-Iraq War movement is nothing more than an anti-Bush groundswell, don't kid yourselves. When William the Great (D) launched attacks into a sovereign country (without prior approval from the UN, by the way, which is apparently a violation of international law), none of the anti-war voices were heard to say so much as "boo".]

This is false. The anti-war movement consistently criticized Clinton during his time in office for his military actions.

If you don't believe me you can check this out for yourself by looking up magazines, newsletters, etc. published by or sympathetic to the anti-war movement. You will find repeated strong denunciations of Clinton and his administration for his military adventures, and these criticisms are comparable to the ones of Bush for similar military actions. The current invasion of Iraq is garnering stronger criticism because it is, let's face it, a stronger action than any Clinton took.

One of the easier journals to find might be In These Times, which has a comparatively large circulation for a left-wing journal. Probably harder for you to find, but even more to the point, would be Nonviolent Activist, the newsletter of War Resisters League. (If you can't locate either of these, you can almost certainly locate The Nation or The Progressive at a library.)

The criticism of Clinton was as strong as the criticism of Bush for comparable actions. If Clinton had invaded Iraq, there would have been the same demonstrations as there were when Bush did.

Much of the criticism made by anti-war folks does not get picked up and broadcast in the mainstream media. Numerous protests go unreported. During the Clinton years, much of the anti-war movement activity was considered "not newsworthy", which may be why whatever sources of information you rely on didn't inform you of it.

If you want to know what the anti-war movement actually says and does, you should subscribe to some anti-war journals and see for yourself, because your current source of information has left you badly misinformed.

A few random thoughts:

1. While the Bush visit to Iraq might have been just an opportunity for a political photo-op, I don't see any reason to hurl any brickabats at George for it. It's what politicians do, on either side of the aisle.

2. The idea that Bush was greetly with great love and enthusiasm by the troops in Iraq should be tempered with the reminder that the troops aren't allowed to air their real feelings for the President, his Cabinet, or this war. Or am I the only person who remembers the soldiers five months ago who got their military careers busted after they complained about Donald Rumsfeld and the Iraq war to an ABC reporter?

3. Anyone hearing accounts of anti-war protestors on Fox News should be sure to keep their NaCl handy. You can get it in bulk at Costco.

It seems that there is boldness in numbers around here.

Since everyone has decided to dog-pile, I will do my best to address all "points".

You are specifically saying that you do not support having the military kill people and cause damage, yet that is EXACTLY what a military is trained to do. How can you be "anti-war" yet support the troops? No one has really answered this.

You say that you support the troops, by saying that they are following the orders from higher up, the decision makers, yet no one has said word one about how this makes them better than drones who lack free will.

To support the troops means to support the mission they are on. That's all there is to it. Otherwise, you are giving lip service to those who deserve better.

If a member of our military were to say that he fully supports the president, and knows he is doing the right thing in Iraq, would you attack his position as you are doing to me here, of would you still "support" him?

The flak jacket thing is interesting. Anyone have evidence to back up that the modern military, thoughtfully assembled by a Vietnam-era draft dodger over the previous decade, is in the field with outdated equipment? If so, I guess that goes as a point against William the Great (D), and not against Bush, doesn't it?

Re-read the context. France and Germany were "brought into it" because that is almost always a point made by those who are anti-war. Americans who are anti-war, almost always point to allies who are against this action, and use such as a major argument. They point to suspicion that evidence of Saddam's wrongdoing (and violation of 19 UN resolutions) was "made up", or that Saddam is bad, but didn't do what he was accused of (by William the Great (D) AND Bush, BTW).

When asked for direct evidence that the administration lied, none is ever provided. Only anecdotal references that are as reliable as "friend of a friend" accounts.

Someone said that all the anti-war publications made noise when Clinton did what he did, but such information never made the mainstream news. Can't help but wonder at the veracity of such dubious claims. As such, I won't waste my time sifting through propaganda that may or may not exist. When Bush still hadn't raised a finger in Iraq (no missiles launched, no soldiers deployed, no additional Naval task forces in the area), peace demonstrations were all over the news. They were demonstrating against the tough talk by Bush. In 1998, when Clinton said the same things, not a peep was heard. When Clinton launched missiles at aspirin factories, nothing was said by the "peace activists" (granted, any other story was overshadowed slightly by Monica's Grand Jury testimony).

Since you claim that such things DID take place, and were dismissed as not newsworthy with a democrat in the White House, can you explain why they WERE newsworthy when a republican was in?

I'm not talking about after the war began, but when it was still just talk. No major media reports of major protests when Clinton launched missiles versus the formation of giant anti-war movements (most led by liberal actors) when Bush was talking about possible action in Iraq, but hadn't launched anything. Care to explain THAT difference?

As for Germany, Germany has a violent past. It never has been a peace-loving country, through all its history. I pointed to the world wars as the most recent examples. Given the total history of Germany (and the other names the region has had through history), it is inconsistent, to say the least, for Germany to suddenly have "cold feet" about military conflict, unless there was some ulterior motive.

I have made my email address available by clicking me name, and would ask, on behalf of Mr. David (hope I’m not overstepping here), that further discussion is possible by contacting my e-mail, rather than using Mr. David’s bandwidth on a discussion that could go on for quite some time. I have an independent message board that could be used, or the discussion could be e-mail based. But I see little point in using Mr. David's web space on this discussion for any more time.

Wolfknight wrote:

You are specifically saying that you do not support having the military kill people and cause damage, yet that is EXACTLY what a military is trained to do. How can you be "anti-war" yet support the troops? No one has really answered this.

EVERYONE has answered it; you're just being bullheaded. Your definition of support and other people's (including mine) differ, but the question has been answered.

Wolfknight again:

The flak jacket thing is interesting. Anyone have evidence to back up that the modern military, thoughtfully assembled by a Vietnam-era draft dodger over the previous decade, is in the field with outdated equipment? If so, I guess that goes as a point against William the Great (D), and not against Bush, doesn't it?

I'm sorry, which Vietnam-era draft dodger are you talking about? Pot, kettle, black.

Rob

First: I wasn't the one who made the Dell comparison; that was "ajk".

STEVE O'RANDO: "This is posted with the thought that the military members have some sort of say so in what they will do or not do. There is no vote! The Commander in Chief makes an order, runs it by congress as needed, and then it goes to the pentagon, and then down through the chain of command from there. The military is here to support and defend the democracy, not be one. Get your facts strait."

So all our guys exist to do is blindly follow orders, no matter if those orders may be immoral or illegal or both? Gee, I guess that's why we gave Lieutenant Calley and his men a parade when they got home, right? I guess that's why we didn't bother with War Crimes trials after WWII, because after all, those German soldiers were just part of an army who could only follow orders, right?

I recommend you take a look at the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and the Law of Armed Conflict. Pay special attention to the discussions of conduct regarding prisoners and enemy combatants, and to the subject of war crimes. Damned near all the military law in the world can be found at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm

A soldier, if given an illegal order, should question said order. To fail to do so, and/or to carry out said order, makes the soldier complicit in the illegal act.

As for your critique of my use of the catch-all term "flak jackets," take a look at this article from the Dallas-Fort Wort Star Telegram: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/6932113.htm

Your belligerence of tone, and your refusal to address the facts I have cited, suggest that you have few if any of your own to get "strait."

And as for Wolfknight's dismissal of claims of antiwar marches against the bombing in Serbia ...

March 29, 1999: "NEW YORK (CNN) -- From New York to Prague to Athens, demonstrators rallied in cities around the world Monday in response to NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia."

March 27, 1999: "(CNN) -- Protests drew thousands of demonstrators Saturday throughout Europe and the United States as NATO missiles again pounded Yugoslavia."

April 15, 1999: (from CNN) "Outside the hotel where the president spoke, hundreds of protesters rallied for both sides of the Kosovo conflict."

May 12, 1999: (CNN again) "Back in the U.S., American hackers are on a political binge, breaking into Web sites to leave what amounts to anti-war graffiti."

There's a lot more, but I trust I've made my point.

Unless CNN isn't "mainstream" enough for you?

Admittedly, there has been a larger outcry to and a greater degree of coverage of the conflict in Iraq. As to why this is, I guess it's because we didn't see Americans dying in Serbia as we did and do in Iraq and Afghanistan. That sort of thing kind of brings a war closer to home.

Your refusal to look into the subject on your own, and your characterization of any accounts contrary to what you have said as "propaganda" which you do not want to "waste" your time looking over, suggests a closed-mindedness which taints any points you may make as those of a blustering demagogue, unwilling to concede even the smallest point.

Here's a question: Why bother bringing Clinton into the discussion at all? If what the administration--ANY administration--is doing is wrong, it matters little what political party it represents, or what previous administrations may have done wrong.

Life is not an atrocity competition; it is not a place for the "Well, HE started it!" of childhood.

By the by: Perhaps your words would have more weight, Wolfknight, if they were spoken from behind something more approximating an actual name.

This is posted with the thought that the military members have some sort of say so in what they will do or not do.

Of course they do. As I noted, these are not draftees. They chose to join the military. They chose to be part of whatever commands come down. They chose to enable this sort of attack by their career choice.

And even once they are in the military, as others note they have options to not follow orders. Given the scale of matters before them, there should be serious consideration even when the decision does have consequences. If I was faced with the choice of spending several years in jail or killing a dozen people, I'd like to think I'd choose the former.

I think it's quite disrespectful to see the members of the military as trained automatons who cannot be expected to have a moral sense.

you completely overlook the fact that I raised about the three Executive Orders in place which make it illegal for the U.S. to employ assassination for political means

If I understand the executive order process correctly, these could be rescinded by another executive order. If Bush wanted to get Saddam rather than killing many thousands of people and then failing to get Saddam, that would seem the more moral option.

And for those who act like we should be happy because the civilian death toll was only several years worth of what Saddam would have killed, only several times what we suffered on 9-11 when outside forces decided it was time to "shock and awe" America (and who seemingly want us to ignore the thousands of Iraqi military members who were killed defending their nation against the offensive attacks of hostile foreign invaders), who want us to be happy because it's our government who is acting like murderous madmen rather than theirs -- telling people to "grow up" is not apt to make them support thousands of people being violently killed, widowed, orphaned, and maimed in their name, at their expense, and at the seeming expense of the security of our nation.

I sat here and read the responses to my posts, and aside from my mispelled words (I'm human, so sue me), I choose not to correspond with anyone else that is ignorant. Unless you have been in the military and in a war, I think it is moot for me to trade words with that person. As you may have guessed, I am a vet of a war, and am a strong supporter of the military. I find liberals to be the nemesis of the military, for reasons I won't go into here. If you think that makes me a war monger or anything of the sort, so be it. I always enjoy a heated discussion, but to discuss anything of this topic with someone that knows only one side of the situation is useless.

Just for the record, Bill Clinton signed an executive order authorizing the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, as part of his own "war on terror." He also tripled the FBI's antiterrorism budget, who in turn convicted a dozen terrorists in the United States and foiled several plots by al Qaeda against American and international interests. Even current Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer readily admits that Clinton was "obsessed" with fighting terrorism, more than any other President before him.

...Not that you'd learn any of this by listening to the conservative pundits.

Those CNN stories would matter more if it were Serbia I was speaking about.

I am referring to Clinton's use of "tough talk" regarding Iraq, and his launching of missiles INTO Iraq.

I am comparing the mainstream liberal view of Clintons action in Iraq versus Bush's action in Iraq. Mentioning Serbia is, as you guys so like to say, a strawman.

I'm not refusing to look into anything on my own. I just refuse to look at anything that I know to be propaganda, as virtually ALL anti-war "information" is.

I brought Clinton into it because it was said that he, not Bush, was responsible for Bush having a decently trained, sizable military, and advanced equipment. Thus far, no one has said word one about the flak jackets being in the field on troops that were supposed to be so well equipped and trained by the Clinton administration. The blame for outdated equipment is still, inappropriately I might add, being tossed in Bush's direction.

Another reason I thought it appropriate to bring Clinton into things, was because someone made a comment about Rumsfeld, and his past attempts to open diplomatic and trade relations with Saddam's Iraq.

Opening the can, allows others in a discussion to bring up whatever past worms they think are appropriate.

As for the "weight" of my words, Mr. Berman, they carry just as much as yours. You respond to them, others respond to them, and they are part of the conversation. If you must know, my name is Victor Talomar. I will continue to sign as Wolfknight, and would appreciate being addressed as such, since that is the name that I have chosen to post under.

Such is the beauty of freedom of speech.

Steve O'Rando: I find liberals to be the nemesis of the military, for reasons I won't go into here.

...[T]o discuss anything of this topic with someone that knows only one side of the situation is useless.

Steve, I certainly respect the veteran and currently serving members of our nation's armed forces; I have friends who fall into both categories. I also respect your opinion; even though I don't share yours, it helps me to formulate and better define my own. However, your above quotes seem to say "here's the side I'm on, and it's useless to debate with anyone who's not on my side." Doesn't that sound like a pretty one-sided debate to you?

I'd much rather hear your responses to the many points brought against your original arguments, much rather hear more of your opinions, instead of hearing that you've resigned yourself to not airing your opinions because they're not being understood. More communication leads to better communication, and better communication leads to comprehension.

tOjb

Unless you have been in the military and in a war, I think it is moot for me to trade words with that person.

You should realize that decisions about the military are made by people who have never been in a war on a military basis... and that goes all the way up to the commander in chief, who called for the war without having been in one himself.

But if you choose only to exchange words with people who have undergone the same indoctrination that you have, that is of course your choice.

Wolfknight: It seems that there is boldness in numbers around here. Since everyone has decided to dog-pile, I will do my best to address all "points".

Luigi Novi: No one here is dog-piling. People are expressing their opinions and views, nothing more.

Wolfknight: You are specifically saying that you do not support having the military kill people and cause damage, yet that is EXACTLY what a military is trained to do. How can you be "anti-war" yet support the troops? No one has really answered this.

Luigi Novi: Many have answered this several times on this thread. Whether you agree with it or understand it bears no relation to whether it’s been answered. Indeed, you referred to the answer given right after making this statement. So how can it not have been answered?

You say that you support the troops, by saying that they are following the orders from higher up, the decision makers, yet no one has said word one about how this makes them better than drones who lack free will.

Wolfknight: To support the troops means to support the mission they are on. That's all there is to it.

Luigi Novi: No, it is not “all there is to it,” and I don’t see how you can tell someone else what they mean by something that they say. Just because a particular bit of wording means one thing to you when you say it does not mean it means what you jolly well wish to attribute it to it when someone else says it, and the people here have already explained what they mean when they they say that they are against the war but support the troops. A given statement means what the speaker says it means. Not what a listener/reader says it does.

Again, what part of the analogies mentioned above did you not understand? Ajk and Alex Berman provided two that clearly illustrated how those who are anti-war place blame for it. You responded to one with a Straw Man argument, and totally ignored the second one. So why are you again saying you don’t understand it, and now telling others what they mean they say this?

If I feel that this particular war is wrong, does that mean that I should shun my friend Mark when he comes home from the service? Should I spit in his face and call him a baby-killer?

Wolfknight: If a member of our military were to say that he fully supports the president, and knows he is doing the right thing in Iraq, would you attack his position as you are doing to me here, of would you still "support" him?

Luigi Novi: Again, the “support” refers to acknowledging that the people in the military are people who joined in good faith, who are doing a difficult, dangerous job, and wanting them to come home unharmed. It doesn’t refer to politics, or to agreeing with the specific assignment he’s been deployed to carry out.

Wolfknight: As for Germany, Germany has a violent past. It never has been a peace-loving country, through all its history. I pointed to the world wars as the most recent examples. Given the total history of Germany (and the other names the region has had through history), it is inconsistent, to say the least, for Germany to suddenly have "cold feet" about military conflict, unless there was some ulterior motive.

Luigi Novi: This is an incredibly specious argument. You say that Germany has never been a peace-loving country through ALL of its history. Does that include today? The past decade? The past 50 years? The latter of your “most recent examples” occurred almost 60 years ago. How does that constitute “all its history”?

Alex Jay Berman: First: I wasn't the one who made the Dell comparison; that was "ajk".

Luigi Novi: Ack! Sorry. You both share the same first two initials, so I got thrown, apparently missing the last. Sorry. :-)

Wolfknight: I'm not refusing to look into anything on my own. I just refuse to look at anything that I know to be propaganda, as virtually ALL anti-war "information" is.

Luigi Novi: All you did was affirm the accusation by essentially admitting it. You don’t want to do the proper journalistic or scientific thing by verifying given sources because to do so would require some modicum of fairness and objectivity, so you label any information that may serve to support an anti-war idea as “propaganda.” Such a statement in itself is prejudicial and rhetorical, and therefore, itself propaganda.

(1) Those who still do not understand how someone can be anti-war yet still support the troops might contact Veterans For Peace (www.veteransforpeace.org) or Vietnam Veterans Against the War (www.vvaw.org).

(2) "Unless you have been in the military and in a war, I think it is moot for me to trade words with that person." Steve O'Rando Good news for you, Steve! The people in the above-named groups have been in the military and in war, and thus you will be able to talk to them.

Good news for you too, Wolfknight! Both groups named above spoke out consistently against Clinton's military adventures. If you get in touch with them they can confirm this for you. They can also confirm that the reason they speak out is because they are anti-war, not because they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican.

(3) "Since you claim that such things DID take place, and were dismissed as not newsworthy with a democrat in the White House, can you explain why they WERE newsworthy when a republican was in?" Wolfknight

Anti-war protests were largely ignored during the Clinton years, but they were also largely ignored during the Reagan years and during the first Bush predidency, until Bush went to war with Iraq in 1991 and anti-war protests became newsworthy. Likewise, anti-war protests did not get much coverage during the current Bush presidency until Bush's speeches and actions leading up to the current war made anti-war protests newsworthy again.

A constant gripe in almost all protest groups, on the right and on the left, is that the media doesn't pay attention to them. Only a fraction of protests that occur in this country get much media coverage. The fact that you didn't hear a peep out of the anti-war people during the Clinton years didn't mean the peeps weren't being made.

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) is a liberal group that criticizes the media for its conservative bias, including complaining about lack of coverage of anti-war speeches and protests. Next time a Democrat is president, go to the FAIR web site and sign up for their e-mail alerts. They will let you know about various anti-war protests that do not receive coverage, and you can then join in asking the media to cover these stories. That way you can help make sure that others are not misled the same way you were into thinking that the anti-war movement only protests against Republicans.

Re. the stories about returning Vietnam vets being spat upon, maybe check out

http://www.rlg.org/annmtg/lembcke99.html

and

http://www.thevoicenews.com/News/2003/0228/In_Response/R03_Bernard-re_Barlow.html

It appears that while it is impossible to prove that it did not happen (but then it always is extremely hard to prove a negative), there appear to be no media or FBI reports from the time of the war itself of anti-war protestors spitting on returning veterans. So it must have been a very minor thing (one would also expect that the administrations and media opposing the anti-war movement would have immediately seized upon even one such incident). In fact on the whole the anti-war movement was fairly welcoming to returning vets, hoping (not without reason) that they could be persuaded to join them. The stories about returning veterans being spat upon by opponents of the war apparently only arose ca. 1980, long after the end of the war and quite a few contain details that make them unlikely. The human memory can play funny tricks.

I guess one of the reasons that the spitting stories received such wide currency was to compensate for the fact that those supporting the Vietnam war did so little to make the returning vets feel welcome themselves. Indeed, war supporters are often more intent on supporting their war than on the troops. There were verified instances of Vietnam vets being spat upon in the US during the war itself, but these were vets spat upon by supporters of the war for protesting against it. Similarly during the run-up to the current Iraq war, some stay-at-home supporters of the war saw nothing wrong in vilifying veterans of Vietnam and the previous Gulf War engaged in anti-war protests, and in Congress the "support the troops" rhethorics did not prevent them from approving a slash in veterans' benefits just as the war began.

Nova Land:

I am well aware of the existence of FAIR, but that doesn't answer the question I asked.

Why was NO MEDIA COVERAGE WHATSOEVER of protests or protest groups forming when Clinton talk tough about Iraq AND launched missiles into Iraq, and almost NOTHING EXCEPT MEDIA COVERAGE of groups forming when Bush was simply talking about Iraq?

Everyone is saying that there is simply a lack of coverage, but this is simply NOT so. The coverage depends heavily on the political alignment of those protesting lining up with the opinion of those doing the editing of the news.

Before a shot had been fired, all across the country, opinions of liberal Hollywood actors such as Mike Farrell and Sean Penn, were well known because they formed a protest group.

I will ask again. WHERE WERE THESE PRINCIPLED PEOPLE WHEN CLINTON LAUNCHED MISSILES? Why did no one say a WORD? Why did newspaper and news desk editors not cover their words if they were said?

WHSAT MAKES A PROTEST OF A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING MORE NEWSWORTHY THAN A PROTEST OF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ATTACKING A SOVERGIN NATION WITHOUT THE UN'S SUPPORT?

It's not a tough question, people. Really it isn't. I cannot think of ANY references to major protests, or principled actors going to Iraq to "see firsthand" the conditions when Clinton was talking about doing something. Yet the newspapers had Sean Penn on the front page. Full page ads from "concerned citizens" were in virtually all newspapers. Basically, there seemed MORE coverage or deeming the story newsworthy when a politically unpopular man was calling the shots.

I just want to know why it is accepted as normal, and why some people continue to claim that the media is not biased in what is "newsworthy"?

Why is a viewpoint that is favorable to liberal interpretation accepted as Gospel, and one that is conservative dismissed as being nothing more than lies?

Where is the objectivity that I am told I lack?

Wolfie-

you're funny, keep it up.

Best free entertainment on the web.

To most of the rest keep up the good debate, sites like this really help me understand BOTH sides of the arguement better.

Instead of getting upset about Robbins' play based on how Fox News characterizes it, wouldn't it make more sense to get upset about it based on actually seeing a performance, or at least reading the script of the play for yourself?

It's possible the play actually is exactly as Fox portrays it. It's also possible it isn't. I'd prefer to get upset with Robbins for what Robbins says and get upset with Fox for what Fox says.

Did you actually read the story? Robbins' people don't deny it; they claim its "satire". fox is a legitimite news source. By your logic, no one could comment on Bush's trip unless they had actually been in Iraq. The Major being called a Nazi was witnessed by them.

**You say that this conflict has been fought with precision; that civilian casualties have been kept to a minimum.

You may want to go to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm and look at the incident-by-incident accounting of civilian deaths they provide. They only publish after sources have been checked, and they will not publish any incident without first having the story from at least two accredited sources. Also, they show the sources for each incident, so you can judge whether or not you think the sources are biased. At the present writing, they show qa MINIMUM of about eight thousand and a maximum of about ten thousand civilians killed. That doesn't sound all that "precision" to me.**

The methodology behind that site has long been discredited, when it was used for the "Afghan body count". Their two sources are usually two networks covering the same government propaganda flack. They also double count. It's exposed here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/554awdqo.asp

In contrast, Bush came in, gave a rah-rah to the US soldiers, and jetted out.

Yeah, it's not like people had been shooting anti-aircraft missiles at jets.

(Even when Bill Clinton went into Macedonia in '99, he made sure to meet with the war's refugees ...)

Weren't we talking a whole lot about the poor Iraqis and how desperately they needed freedom a while back? Way to show dedication to that ideal.

Did you miss the part where he met with members of the Iraqi governing council?

Further. I can't help but think that the trip was conceived--if quickly--to steal the thunder away from the trip to Afghanistan by Sens. Clinton and John Reed. After all, it was announced that they would be sharing Thanksgiving with the troops in Afghanistan, then heading to Iraq over the weekend.

Only if you think Bush's world revolves around Hillary.

Think about it--the President of the United States snuck away from the Secret Service, whose most visible objective as a department is to protect him ... but he stopped to pick up members of the White House press corps.

It would have been MUCH cooler, MUCH more sincere-looking, and MUCH more effective, if he'd just TAKEN the Secret Service with him, DITCHED the press corps, and then let the news sink in after the fact.

The president always has some reporters following him. They're called the press pool. CNN was complaining because their regular guy wasn't brought along.

Luigi Novi: You’re supporting the troops by essentially saying that even though you’re against the war, you harbor no ill feelings against them because they’re not the ones in power who make the major decisions regarding it, but young boys, often poor, who are used by the government for ends that the protestor feels are wroing, and who have no say in where they’re sent to.

In other words, you excuse them for being stupid. An actual soldier in Iraq has his views on that:

http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_iraqnow_archive.html#106953634372190831

\\BrakYeller: I don't think MarvelFan literally meant opening the caskets and taking pictures of bodies (at least, I hope he didn't).

Correct. Limiting the press from viewing all aspects of the results of this war, such as the arrival of the coffins back home and the presentation of the flags to the family members, seems wrong to me, and I have seen press members from both sides of the issue say so.\\

That's a regulation started during the first Bush administration and never repealed under Clinton. As for funerals, Presidents rarely go to individual ones.

"By your logic, no one could comment on Bush's trip unless they had actually been in Iraq. -- Jim Burdo

No, that doesn't follow.

I said it is unfair to get overly worked up with one person for what another person says.

If Fox news broadcasts the play, it is fair to get upset by what you see in the play. If Fox news broadcasts a speech by George Bush, it is fair to get upset with Bush for the content of that speech.

But if a Fox reviewer rips apart the play, or a Fox pundit rips apart a politician, I maintain it is fair to wait until you have actually seen the play or read the politician's speech for yourself before you fly off the handle.

By my logic, it is unfair to get overly upset with George Bush or Tom DeLay based on what Molly Ivins or Jim HIghtower say he said. I read them (and other liberal critics of the president) and I often enjoy their writing. But I think it is unfair to assume that their characterization of what George Bush or Tom DeLay have said or done is a fair one. Before I get upset with Bush over what Molly Ivins has written, I want to look up what Bush actually said so I can judge it for myself.

It is very easy to select facts out of context and make almost anything sound bad. This is especially true with works of fiction -- plays, novels, even comic books. (Just think what someone with an axe to grind could do with Fallen Angel.)

It just seems like common sense to me. Before getting all hot and bothered and informing the people around you how horrible something is, take the time to actually see the thing you're talking about.

WolfKnight: The coverage depends heavily on the political alignment of those protesting lining up with the opinion of those doing the editing of the news.

That in mind, would you be willing to admit that FoxNews' coverage is politically aligned with conservatives? And if Fox is so inclined, can you still consider them an objective news source, given a stated preference for 'objective' news?

The most objective television news source that first comes to most peoples' minds (including mine) is PBS's News Hour, and I well remember them covering the dissent against Clinton's actions in the Balkans, and his 'tough talk' on Iraq (possibly because they were the only major outfit covering it).

Jim Burdo: [F]ox is a legitimite news source.

Despite the fact that they tend to get higher ratings than CNN, I know a lot of people (many of whom work in the news business) who can't and don't consider FoxNews as a hard-and-fast legitimate news source. After all, after 4pm most of their news broadcasts include opinion or editorial pieces at the tail end (I'm thinking specifically of Neil Cavuto). True, both CNN and FoxNews do opinion shows ('Hardball' and 'O'Rielly' spring to mind), but they're clearly marketed as such, and I believe Fox airs more of them. I've also noticed the tendency of Fox anchors to not shy away from offering commentary after reading a news piece, something that is inherently frowned upon by the journalism community (the Hindenberg and other disasters of mass scale notwithstanding). Now, while I've occasionally seen the talking heads of CNN and Co. offer similar opinion after news reads, the Fox gang tends to do it a LOT more often.

When you think about it, much of FoxNews's success is credited to commentators like O'Rielly and Cavuto rather than to their reporting... which says something about the quality of their reporting. CNN and Co., on the other hand, are known more for their reporters and reporting than anything else... Lester Holt (of MSNBC) and Wolf Blitzer rose to fame for their work reporting on the Gulf Wars; both have reputations resting on their objectivity.

And let's not forget, before they became known as the 'conservative' news network, FoxNews was the 'let's drop our regular programming to televise every friggin' car chase that we can' news network. Fox has a reputation for flair and sensationalist programming which long precedes the existence of the cable news network.

Oddly enough, both CNN and FoxNews each came to prominence during a Gulf War, and each under a Republican president named Bush, so the popularity of either network can't easily be ascribed to a liberal or conservative national consciousness at the time. I think it's got more to do with the type of war being fought: an expulsion of the Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait versus an invasion of Iraqi. Two different motivations; two different mindsets... and one has to admit to a vast chasm of mindset between FoxNews and CNN & Co.

tOjb

Obviously, I meant to say 'Iraq' rather than 'Iraqi' at the end of the penultimate sentence in my last post. Apologies.

tOjb

The methodology behind that site has long been discredited, when it was used for the "Afghan body count". Their two sources are usually two networks covering the same government propaganda flack. They also double count. It's exposed here:

Ummm, no, it's not. What you point to is a grad student trying to discredit it, but he uses faulty logic. He acts as though civilian deaths caused by Iraq's attempt to defend itself in the war should not count.

Their methodology is not precise, but it's the best I've seen. Other attempts to generate a casualty count seem largely grounded in wishful thinking.

Luigi Novi: You’re supporting the troops by essentially saying that even though you’re against the war, you harbor no ill feelings against them because they’re not the ones in power who make the major decisions regarding it, but young boys, often poor, who are used by the government for ends that the protestor feels are wrong, and who have no say in where they’re sent to.

Jim Burdo: In other words, you excuse them for being stupid.

Luigi Novi: I didn’t say they were stupid. You did.

I said I don’t hold them responsible for decisions made by the President. I made that clear to anyone objective enough to read my statement for what it was. Lack of culpability has nothing to do with stupidity. To interpret my statement to mean what you said is such a gross and vitriolic distortion that one can only wonder wonder at the subconscious motives for wanting to believe it.

Please, if you want to address me, call me "Wolfknight", not "wolfie".

Had I wanted to be called "wolfie", I would have chosen that as a screen name.

That out of the way, Many people keep saying that protests to Clinton's Balkan policy are what I should be content with.

Not a single person has answered the question regarding a lack of mainstream coverage of protests against Clinton's IRAQ policies and actions.

THAT is what I am asking about. If I wanted information about Clinton and the Balkans, I would have asked for it.

To keep bringing up protests of actions that I am NOT asking about is a classic "strawman" argument. Keep to what I am asking about, and maybe the position being represented by such arguments won't seem so weak.

Oh, and before Mr. Burdo takes me to task for it, let me refine what I mean by a 'hard-and-fast legitimate news source.' Reuters and the Associated Press are legitimate, first-rate news sources. This is because reporters for these outlets report events and/or facts as they witness them, and without injecting personal opinion or commentary... that's what 'news' is supposed to mean. I would say that the New York Times, CNN, and Headline News are all first-rate news sources as well, though each of the three does from time to time deviate from the objective into the opinionated. (And I’m speaking strictly of their news coverage, and not of their opinion shows/pages.)

FoxNews, on the other hand, tends to be news in the same way that reading 'Time' or 'The New Yorker' is news: certain timely public events are focused on for discussion, where other events are discarded. Yes, they're still news by definition, and they all carry weight and respectability as creditable outlets of topical information, but they're second-rate news... not the first place you turn for facts, but media you turn to for review/analysis of the facts. With Fox, Time, and the others, their reporting tends to be both fact- and opinion-based... something which true, hard-and-fast journalists frown upon. News is not about spin, it's about facts. The job of a journalist is to report the facts as objectively as possible and allow the consumer to formulate their opinions from those facts. Any time you try to analyze the reasons behind those facts, you move away from journalism and into editorial opinion.

Everything that calls itself news is not necessarily news... we need only look to the Weekly World News ("Bat Boy Found In Cave!!!") to see this.

tOjb

Wow, someone has a sore spot.

**Brak wrote:

Everything that calls itself news is not necessarily news... we need only look to the Weekly World News ("Bat Boy Found In Cave!!!") to see this.**

Okay, I give.

If not a cave, where WAS the Bat Boy found?

"If not [in] a cave, [then] where WAS the Bat Boy found?"

Why, behind the grandfather clock, of course.

(Aunt Harriet is under suspicion.)

\\That out of the way, Many people keep saying that protests to Clinton's Balkan policy are what I should be content with.

Not a single person has answered the question regarding a lack of mainstream coverage of protests against Clinton's IRAQ policies and actions.

THAT is what I am asking about. If I wanted information about Clinton and the Balkans, I would have asked for it.\\

If memory serves me, the reason Clinton's Iraq endeavors were not broadcast so much in the mainstream is that Ken Starr and friends were doing everything in their power to make sure that the topmost topic on everyone's mind was Whitewater and/or the Lewinski scandal. With all the hub-bub on Monica-Gate, it's easy to see how protests on a relatively small military incursion would be back paged.

Also consider that Clinton's military involvement in Iraq was not nearly equal to Bush's in size, commitment, and collateral damage and you can see why protests (and thus, coverage of protests) weren't as proportionately large or widespread.

That would follow, Sasha, except for a few things...

1) Clinton's missile attack in Iraq was the SAME DAY that Monica was to take the stand in front of a Grand Jury.

Clinton's actions in Iraq seemed to be designed to draw attention AWAY from the whole Monica thong-- I mean, thing.

2) I wasn't speaking about Bush's military involvement being protested (a group called "United for Peace and Justice" was founded in 2002. Mike Farrell's pet project, "Artists United wit Win Without War" was not formed until 2002, even though Mr. Farrell had been to Rwanda and Czechoslovakia. The war in Iraq did not begin until 2003), and Clinton's not (on September 3, 1996, air strikes took place in Iraq, under Clinton's authorization).

As I said, Bush hadn't authorized ANYTHING in Iraq, but his protestors were all over the place (including Sean Penn, who went to Iraq). Where were these people when Clinton actually launched attacks?

Where was the laundry list of celebs who thought that any action in Iraq was "morally inexcusable"?