Michael Ken Nielsen brought the following video to my attention. (Don't worry, it's work safe...unless your boss is a Bush supporter, I suppose.)
So is it STILL too early to call it a Vietnam-like quagmire? Especially after McCain asserted that we might well be there for the next hundred years?
ttp://www.youtube.com/v/h5Vf4VbLfv8&hl=en">
Posted by Peter David at March 21, 2008 08:44 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingWow. Reminds me of that one troupe's tribute to the war you linked to here months and months ago. It was just as funny. Wish I could remember the group's name. "A$$hole.... A$$hole... A soldier I will be..."
It was by the Asylum Street Spankers from Austin. I highly recommend catching them in concert.
Um, so how many candles do you put on a cake for something that is five years old, but officially over four years and ten months ago, but still creating casualties and deaths?
And why is this guy in a head mask handing me all these candles?
And why have I never heard of a candle company named I.E.D.?
And why are the candles exploding in my hand?
Who gives a crap what you think. We'll stay there as long as we want and no matter how many of you wimps think it was a mistake, we'll do what we like and nothing you can do or say will stop us.
signed
Dick Cheney
Hey, even McCain thought it would be a cakewalk... so we should elect him president next, right? Or maybe just stick around for another 100 years?
McCain's words have been conveniently taken out of context. When he means the next 100 years, he means permanent bases, like what we have in Germany and Korea, (since World War II and the Korean War). And no, comparing it to Vietnam is like comparing apples to oranges. The situation is no way as dire as it was in Vietnam, and to say so is to exaggerate. While most of us think it was a mistake to go in the first place, we should be able to admit that the surge has seen significant improvements. Even if we hate the war, we should still be rooting for success over there.
Comparing Iraq to Korea or Germany is comparing apples to VW Beetles. And outside of some diminished violence it's still bad(civilian deaths up last month, 2007 deadlier than 2006) a great deal of the success can be explain by the cease fire of the Mahdi army.
There has been almost no improvement on the politiical front. Almost none of the things Bush promised at the start of the Surge have come about.
If McCain cannot see the difference between this and WWII, then he is not fit to be President.
I don't know what success is, so I root for the return of our troops from that fiasco.
Comparing Iraq to Korea or Germany is like comparing apples to watermelons. Watermelons are much bigger, redder, there's a bunch of fanatical little Gallaghers ready come up behind us with a sledgehammer and explode all over us.
Sorry, I couldn't resist jumping on the metaphor fruit bandwagon.
I like the version on THE DAILY SHOW where they showed that if you view the President's reports on the war in reverse chronology, things actually look like they're getting better! If anyone has a YouTube clip of this, please add it in a post!
Well, putting things into perspective, about 33,000 American soldiers died during the Korean War, and we're still there; and about 400,000 American soldiers died during World War II, and we're still in Germany and Japan.
It stands to reason that we'll be in Iraq for quite some time -- which anyone with half a brain should have realized the day this war started.
Regarding WW II -- think about it. For every one soldier we've lost to date in Iraq, 100 American servicemembers died during WW II. Every single one of those men and women had hopes, dreams, families -- the works. If you add in civilian deaths and military deaths of all the nations involved, the death toll estimate skyrockets to more than 48 million people. Was WW II worth THAT human cost?
You tell me. But you'll have to explain very carefully why those tens of millions of people were any less valuable than the comparatively tiny fraction of people who have died in the current nation-building effort in Iraq.
The fact is they weren't. There is really no "good war" or "bad war." In terms of human cost, all wars are bad, because the human cost of most wars will invariably be far, far greater than if one side or the other had just rolled over and capitulated before a shot was ever fired.
But, whether it is “defensive” or “offensive,” war is usually about preserving one's political ideology, freedom, cultural identity, religious identity, or a combination thereof. Are the lives of thousands, tens of thousands, millions, or tens of millions EVER worth such a price?
Again... you tell me.
For those of you who think the Iraq war was “not worth it,” let me ask you this: Why was, say, losing 360,000 Union soldiers during the American Civil War to free 4 million slaves worth it, but losing 4,000 American soldier to free more than 25 million Iraqi slaves “stupid”?
The Iraqis weren’t really slaves, you may argue? Well, 15 million Shiites and five million Kurds sure were. They were second or third class citizens with no power who were routinely brutalized, lynched, beheaded and murdered (sometimes en masse) at will by the ruling minority.
Food for thought.
And Abraham Lincoln wasn't black... and FDR wasn't a Russian communist... and Truman wasn't Korean... and Kennedy wasn't Vietnamese... and Clinton wasn't Somali... and, well... you get the idea.
-"a great deal of the success can be explain by the cease fire of the Mahdi army." True, but a good deal of success has also come from the strategy of General Petraeus. Let's give our guys some credit.
-"And outside of some diminished violence it's still bad(civilian deaths up last month, 2007 deadlier than 2006)". Unfortunately, also true. However, American casualties have dropped significantly. So, while there is still a long way to go, there has been progress.
-" If McCain cannot see the difference between this and WWII, then he is not fit to be President." I'd say a guy who has not only given service to his country in the military, but also years in the senate fighting for principals that were often at odds with his own party (lobby reform, critical of Bush's initial handling of the war) and has extensive foreign policy experience, is more than qualified to be president.
-"I don't know what success is, so I root for the return of our troops from that fiasco." Success is peace in Iraq, with a functioning democratic government. Not saying it's easy, but ultimately that's what success would (hopefully) be. And all of us should be rooting for that, even if one hate's the war and/or hates Bush. Success in Iraq doesn't mean Bush was right, or won, or justify invading it. But it does mean the Iraqi people and our troops, are no longer subject to violence.
This was well done both musically and lyrically. Thanks for showing it to us, PAD!
Posted by: Patrick at March 21, 2008 08:54 PM
McCain's words have been conveniently taken out of context. When he means the next 100 years, he means permanent bases, like what we have in Germany and Korea, (since World War II and the Korean War).
Maybe, but if McCain's options are:
A) withdraw the troops
or
B) stay there for 100 years keeping the country from descending into *complete* anarchy
McCain would choose B. So it isn't inaccurate to say that he'd be down for a century in Iraq if that's what he thought it would take.
See, I can understand and even kind of agree with the argument for staying if that argument goes like this:
"We made a mistake by going in, we wrecked this country, and therefore we have a duty to do everything we can to repair it."
But McCain seems to think that it was a great idea to begin with. He seems to be saying that regardless of how bad things get, it will all be worth it in the end. If he could go back and do it all over again, he'd invade all over again, because according to him absolutely nothing could possibly be worse than allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in charge for one more day.
I'd say a guy who has not only given service to his country in the military, but also years in the senate fighting for principals that were often at odds with his own party (lobby reform, critical of Bush's initial handling of the war) and has extensive foreign policy experience, is more than qualified to be president.
Yeah, he used to vote his conscience (or at least what I thought was his conscience) instead of along party lines.
But now he's sucking up to the Bush administration and recently voted against a bill that would've banned waterboarding.
That was when my last shred of respect for McCain evaporated, when I read about that. I thought that no matter what, I could at least count on him to do everything he could in order to ensure that the United States did not use torture. Now he is pro-torture. Now I am anti-McCain.
Success is peace in Iraq, with a functioning democratic government. Not saying it's easy, but ultimately that's what success would (hopefully) be. And all of us should be rooting for that, even if one hate's the war and/or hates Bush. Success in Iraq doesn't mean Bush was right, or won, or justify invading it. But it does mean the Iraqi people and our troops, are no longer subject to violence.
This situation is, as I see it, lose/lose. Let's say that those objectives are achieved. That will mean the ordeal of the Iraqi people is finally over, which will be good.
It will also mean, however, that Bush will be bragging about how his vision came to pass.
He'll talk about how all of the critics of the war were just too short-sighted and weren't thinking long-term, like he'll claim he was.
He'll talk about how the outcome in Iraq proves that the United States can successfully democratize (if that's not a real word, that won't stop him from using it in all likelihood) any country it wishes to.
By then, whoever is President might consider repeating the process in another country somewhere.
That President won't think about the toll such an attack would take on the people of the country.
He or she won't think about the civilians who might be unfortunate enough to be underneath the bombs, as the song says.
He or she won't think about the aftermath, whether the quality of life will be better or worse.
He or she won't think about how attacking any other country that has not attacked you first is wrong.
No, he or she will think "If we can make Iraq into a democracy, we can do it in this place too! Sure, why not? Let's do it."
The way I see it, if the American people and American politicians look back on this war as having any positive outcomes at all, it will set a dangerous precedent and make them more willing to start other wars.
So...perpetual hell in Iraq vs. having this done again and again in the future. Lose/lose.
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 21, 2008 11:39 PM
For those of you who think the Iraq war was “not worth it,” let me ask you this: Why was, say, losing 360,000 Union soldiers during the American Civil War to free 4 million slaves worth it, but losing 4,000 American soldier to free more than 25 million Iraqi slaves “stupid”?
The Iraqis weren’t really slaves, you may argue? Well, 15 million Shiites and five million Kurds sure were. They were second or third class citizens with no power who were routinely brutalized, lynched, beheaded and murdered (sometimes en masse) at will by the ruling minority.
All 20-25 million of them? Or were the majority of them left alone for the most part with the ruling minority making examples of people now and then? (Please don't bring up the gassing of the Kurds, since that happened 15 years prior to the invasion and Saddam hadn't done it a second time since.)
How many of them think that the current situation is a whole lot better? At least under Saddam they weren't living in a war zone.
Finally, if you want to talk about being treated unjustly and even brutally by the system, take a look at the United States prison system. There are innocent people in there (as DNA testing continues to prove) and there are people in there for possession of marijuana (which hurts nobody aside from, possibly, themselves). There have been people locked away for engaging in consensual sex (Lawrence v. Texas). And so on.
So even though the U.S. is by no means as bad as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it would be a gross exaggeration to say that in the United States nobody innocent ever gets victimized by those in power. It would also be inaccurate to say that it doesn't happen very often, because it happens a lot.
So, using the same logic that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, somebody should declare war on the United States. Somebody should "liberate" the country. Any civilian deaths resulting from such an invasion would be justified, because they would be for the greater good. Even thousands and thousands of civilians deaths would be acceptable, as it would be a regrettable but necessary consequence of making the United States into a truly free country.
No, I don't believe that should happen. But when you talk about how this was so great for the Iraqis, you really should think about how you would feel if it was done to you.
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 21, 2008 11:39 PM
For those of you who think the Iraq war was “not worth it,” let me ask you this: Why was, say, losing 360,000 Union soldiers during the American Civil War to free 4 million slaves worth it, but losing 4,000 American soldier to free more than 25 million Iraqi slaves “stupid”?
Hmm... The American Civil was fought by and for Americans in .... AMERICA! It was on our own turf, not half a planet away in a country that did not ask for help. An uprising like that, a "civil war", needs to come from the country's own people to EVER have a chance at doing any lasting good. It CANNOT be forced upon them by an outside strong-armed force that has no cultural clue what it's doing. If it's not worth it to them, we will fail no matter how much effort and money we throw at them. If we really felt the overpowering need to liberate slaves, why didn't we liberate the millions of Asiatic child slaves toiling in sweatshops and brothels, sewing our Nikes and entertaining our businessmen? Or the millions of enslaved Africans in the eastern sub-Sahara - routinely beheaded, beaten, raped, persecuted, murdered, etc. - also often by Muslim extremists?
Sorry. I forgot those people don't have supplies of $120/barrel Crude....
R Maheras: And Abraham Lincoln wasn't black...
Luigi Novi: But the blacks were humans beings being dehumanied in America.
R Maheras: ...and FDR wasn't a Russian communist... and Truman wasn't Korean... and Kennedy wasn't Vietnamese...
Luigi Novi: No, but those regimes either posed a threat to the U.S. directly, or it was believed, indirectly through the scourge of communism.
R Maheras: and Clinton wasn't Somali...
Luigi Novi: No, he wasn't. But he had a desire to perform a humanitarian act in Somalia, and despite that, some of our soldiers got killed and dragged through the streets, thereby illustrating that, just with Iraq, even if there is a noble cause or emergent positive effect of such intervention, it can come with a price to our troops, something for which their families might want us to be a bit more selective in where we send them and why.
It stands to reason that we'll be in Iraq for quite some time -- which anyone with half a brain should have realized the day this war started.
That's kind of like saying if Lady MacBeth had half a brain, she should have realized her husband would break and become a hallucinating paranoid the day she pushed him to kill his predecessor. Who would have thought a 400-year-old play taught in high schools about morons would still be performed dramatically today?
People aren't robots, in spite of their own and your belief they are. Reason is the contrast to privilege, and privilege is the contrast to reason. Reason is everything to a robot, but reason can't be everything to anyone. Your wondering why people don't remember they aligned themselves as robots at the start of the invasion... that's dark, dude. Dark and oppressive.
I would assume the reason most people oppose this war is that it appears to be sacrificing American, allied and Iraqi lives to achieve nothing of dire need to America. The Civil War and World War II were terrible things, and anyone who calls them "good" has no perspective - but they achieved tasks which were vital to American interests - preservation of the Union (the abolition of slavery was not really a primary goal) and the defeat of an Axis which had attacked this country and threatened to consume its allies. The War in Iraq began as an attack on a third rate despot who had confined his crimes against humanity to his own country and its immediate neighbors. It's stupid to pretend Saddam Hussein was a nice guy, but just as stupid to pretend he posed a threat to the United States. Sacrifice of lives to achieve something important is a sad necessity; Sacrifice of them to nothing is idiocy.
"and there are people in there for possession of marijuana (which hurts nobody aside from, possibly, themselves)"
I know this is a complete aside from the actual topic, but I had to relate a story about how completely untrue this is.
My current girlfriend (who was my best friend for 5 years before we starting dating) was dating a man who had been smoking marijuana consistently for 20 years. His memory was completely shot. He smoked pot in front of me a few times. One day I made a joke about it to him. He angrily screamed at my best friend, because he claimed he did not want anyone to know about it and she must have told me. Because of that, he also attempted to beat her.
Just because Marijuana slowly erodes your brain, in contrast to Cocaine which very quickly erodes it, doesn't make it any better. My father (whom I do not speak to anymore at this point) has done cocaine for for 20 years, and has never hurt anyone besides himself. So I really have no clue how Marijuana is much different.
My apologies for posting twice, but thoughts come to me very scattered when I just wake up :)
"needs to come from the country's own people to EVER have a chance at doing any lasting good. It CANNOT be forced upon them by an outside strong-armed force that has no cultural clue what it's doing. If it's not worth it to them, we will fail no matter how much effort and money we throw at them."
I'm just curious: How does a group of oppressed people, that is probably without money, leadership and hope do this? How do they go about fighting back without some kind of support? I'm not sure that we, as everyday citizens, have ANY clue what the average Iraq citizen feels. Especially since there is no way in the last 20 years it could ever be broadcast to us.
Are we expecting a group of "good" terrorists ala V for Vendetta to show up in dramatic fashion? Or is oppression only to be fought when its taken up as the celebrity trend of the month like Darfur?
I'll be crucified saying this but if Clinton was in the White House and he was the one to do all this with Iraq we would have a complete 180 as far as news coverage. The talking heads on TV would be spinning it to be the greatest thing the US has ever done.
I'm not saying you guys here would be singing a different tune but the media bias is unashamedly obvious.
Please don't bring up the gassing of the Kurds, since that happened 15 years prior to the invasion and Saddam hadn't done it a second time since.)
Rob that is just a weak, weak argument Saddam gassed the Kurds many times. They are still finding mass graves today. Much documentation was used during Saddams trial to prove he was the spawn of Satan and needed to be taken out.
Now however we need to make sure the vacuum isnt filled with bigger spawns. As for the U.S. not doing anything at the time would continuing not to do anything about it be better?
Regarding WW II -- think about it. For every one soldier we've lost to date in Iraq, 100 American servicemembers died during WW II.
This comparison doesn't hold. The Iraq war is in a country the size of California, against an "enemy" who was no threat to anyone outside the Iraqi borders. WWI was fought through all of Europe, most of the Pacific & most of North Africa against 2 enemies who were invading every country they could get to. And we defeated both those enemies in less time then we have so far taken in Iraq.
As for the U.S. not doing anything at the time would continuing not to do anything about it be better?
Yes. You wait until you're attacked or you don't attack at all.
In Speed, Keanu Reeves' character decides to shoot the hostage when confronted with a hostage situation. Presto: the bad guy no longer has a hostage, and can be dealt with directly.
But in that movie, he only shot the hostage in the shoulder. That shocked the bad guy so much that he let the hostage go and left himself open. Imagine if he had shot the hostage in the heart instead. No decent person would do such a thing.
When the Bush administration declared war, they decided to shoot the "hostages", in this case any Iraqi people who were not able to get out of the way of their bombs. They didn't worry about whether those "hostages" died as a result, just as long as they got the bad guy. They've got innocent blood on their hands, and they should answer for it.
The surge is like running the pumps on a sinking ship. It buys time to man the lifeboats, call for help, and maybe try to patch the hole in the hull if you've got the equipment.
If you don't actually do any of those things, what's the point?
I'll be crucified saying this but if Clinton was in the White House and he was the one to do all this with Iraq we would have a complete 180 as far as news coverage. The talking heads on TV would be spinning it to be the greatest thing the US has ever done.
I wouldn't say crucified, but I certainly greet your claim with incredulity.
Putting aside that Clinton wouldn't have done it...Gore wouldn't have done it...hell, even W's father wouldn't and didn't...everything that Clinton did was second guess and trashed to within an inch of its life. If Clinton had invaded Iraq, it would have been cited as being an attempt to distract from other "activities" and by this point the talking heads would be talkling impeachment.
PAD
I still find it amazing that if you watch some of the CNN interviews with W Sr after the Gulf War and he talks about how much of a bad idea and how stupid it would be to go into Iraq and all those good points that he made, which most were good points, are never re-addressed to Jr.
Just because Marijuana slowly erodes your brain, in contrast to Cocaine which very quickly erodes it, doesn't make it any better.
I have a brother who is addicted to cocaine, and a father who is addicted to alcohol. Both substances have been highly damaging to their lives, and to the lives of people around them. But the fact that cocaine use is outlawed hasn't really helped my brother or anyone else at all, or made his case any better than my father's.
So, what is the point? I'm not sure if there is a point to it all, but if there was, I'd say, make drug use solely a health concern, why make it a crime? Makes no logical sense, except perhaps to fuel the sense of moral superiority of people who don't use drugs.
Ops. Forgot to make it clear that the first paragraph of my above post was taken from another post. The rest is my response.
Putting aside that Clinton wouldn't have done it...Gore wouldn't have done it...hell, even W's father wouldn't and didn't
Lou and Carl Cannon (authors of "Reagan's Disciple") have argued that Reagan wouldn't have invaded.
Posted by: Rene at March 22, 2008 05:51 PM
So, what is the point? I'm not sure if there is a point to it all, but if there was, I'd say, make drug use solely a health concern, why make it a crime? Makes no logical sense, except perhaps to fuel the sense of moral superiority of people who don't use drugs.
Yeah, I agree. If taking the occasional bong hit were proven to cause people to go on crime sprees I might feel differently about what the penalties for possession should be. But it doesn't, and although I'm sure that using it too often is not good for you or people who care about you I have met a number of people who told me they routinely smoked weed and whose brains seemed to be working just fine. They certainly didn't strike me as dangerous people who needed to be imprisoned.
Ahh that's weird, I read this blog every day or so from the UK and it's odd to see something from over here linked up. Was going to say there's an anti-war medley up on his Myspace but it's gone now.
Here's another anti-war vid anyways http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdYFOABd1DM
the current nation-building effort in Iraq.
Ahh, if only we were prepared for nation building from the start. But we weren't.
We didn't go to build Iraq, but we did a helluva job tearing down what they had.
The thing is, the case could be made that we shouldn't have gone to Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan or Iraq.
We're not still in Japan or Germany for the sake of their military needing us to keep control in the country. We shouldn't have had to be in Korea for the last 50 years, and it's nonsensical to think that we can continue doing this in the future with other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Seeing some of these drug-related posts and the "It doesn't hurt anyone else" theme going on, take it from me. It hurts other people. From the people in the other car when a toked-up driver hits them or the family of the user when they OD, it hurts other people.
As far as the war goes--I only wish I had something useful to say.
Michael T : I'm just curious: How does a group of oppressed people, that is probably without money, leadership and hope do this? How do they go about fighting back without some kind of support?
And the Bolsheviks had Kalishnakovs when they overthrew the Tsar? And the French had tanks when they stormed the Bastille? And billion-dollar Blackhawks helped the farmers at Lexington and Concord? No, you'll never get me to believe that statement. Revolutions are made when the people en masse have had enough of their persecution, and finally take a stand. And if the act of submission to authority is so ingrained by culture that revolution is not even a concept, you can try to rile them until you're blue in the face, but it won't happen. We can't even speak their language, let alone understand their culture.
Is it harder to do when you only have bricks and bayonets against tanks? Sure, but the Afghanis beat the Russians and the Iraqi's are knocking our boots off with little homemade IEDs; it may not be much, but the Afghani's won their war by holing up and bankrupting the Russians in an endless stalemate - the direction we're headed. The only country I would not recommend this in is China, because with a Billion people, you will never run short of troops. Yes, India also has a billion, but they are much more disparate with cultures and religions than China, and a group consensus is far less likely.
We also, as a really dumb nation, have forgotten that the whole reason we were looking at war was for retaliation for the planing of our towers. Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with that. Most of the hijackers were of Egyptian or Saudi heritage, and we've never, ever given a thought to even politely asking them for reparations (although Saudi women are so enslaved they can be beaten to death with rocks for the crimes of relatives - not even their own crimes). The invasion of Iraq was a pee-poor excuse to detract from our failing to locate - if we even really tried - bin Laden.
Susan O says: We also, as a really dumb nation, have forgotten that the whole reason we were looking at war was for retaliation for the planing of our towers. Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with that. Most of the hijackers were of Egyptian or Saudi heritage, and we've never, ever given a thought to even politely asking them for reparations (although Saudi women are so enslaved they can be beaten to death with rocks for the crimes of relatives - not even their own crimes). The invasion of Iraq was a pee-poor excuse to detract from our failing to locate - if we even really tried - bin Laden.
Susan, Show me where Bush claims Iraq was responsible......He does believe Saddam had some ties and/or backed Al-Qaeda and Iraq would have been a perfect safe haven for future attacks. he has never claimed Iraq was directly responsible.
he has never claimed Iraq was directly responsible.
He didn't have to. He just insinuated it over, and over, and over, until like half the people in this country believed it.
He got exactly what he wanted, support for his little war, and he never had to say it.
Rob Brown wrote about the Iraqis being slaves under Saddam: “All 20-25 million of them? Or were the majority of them left alone for the most part with the ruling minority making examples of people now and then? (Please don't bring up the gassing of the Kurds, since that happened 15 years prior to the invasion and Saddam hadn't done it a second time since.)”
OK, we’ll look at the world through your lens for a minute.
Let’s say that in 1940, Roosevelt had said, “Hey, instead of fighting the Germans and Japanese, let’s just make a deal with them, and urge the Russians and everyone else to do the same. Europe and Asia will not be ravaged, tens of millions of lives will be saved -- especially hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. After all, the MAJORITY of people living under the Nazis and the Japanese will be just fine.”
But that’s not what happened. Instead, Roosevelt opted to plunge us into a war that killed nearly 50 million people. Was it worth 50 million lives to keep Hitler and Hirohito from eventually mass murdering six, eight or 10 million people, who, like the Kurds you flippantly seem to disregard, were considered a “nuisance”? Yes? No? Maybe? And when is the ratio of those killed by a war versus those who might be liberated or kept free by a war “worth it”?
That is always an incredibly tough decision for any president, and no matter what final decision he makes about going to war or avoiding war, there will always be those who will argue he made the wrong decision.
Rob Brown wrote: “How many of them think that the current situation is a whole lot better? At least under Saddam they weren't living in a war zone.”
I’ll wager any of the millions of Kurds in Northern Iraq will tell you they are glad Saddam is gone, and, while there is still much to be done in that part of Iraq, life is much better for them now than it had been at any time under nearly three decades of Saddam’s rule. Keep in mind that Saddam just didn’t gas them, he was systematically destroying every one of their villages.
http://www.theotheriraq.com/press_michigan.html
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001407.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-25-1223407209_x.htm
Susan O wrote: “Hmm... The American Civil was fought by and for Americans in .... AMERICA! It was on our own turf, not half a planet away in a country that did not ask for help…” and “… If we really felt the overpowering need to liberate slaves, why didn't we liberate the millions of Asiatic child slaves toiling in sweatshops and brothels, sewing our Nikes and entertaining our businessmen?”
The Civil War was just one example I cited. In reality, where a president decides to commit troops to battle, whether it’s in our own back yard or in Europe, really doesn’t matter. Wherever it may be, lots and lots of soldiers and civilians are going to die in the process.
And so what if Iraq didn’t invite us into their country to free their slaves? I don’t recall Germany inviting us into their territory during WW II to free their slaves either.
As for pushing to liberate child-labor slaves in Asia, that’s fine by me!
Luigi Novi wrote:” But the blacks were humans beings being dehumanied in America.”
Yeah, but that practice had been going on for hundreds of years in the New World (a practice, I might add, that was developed and/or fueled by Europeans like the Spanish, French, Dutch, Italians, English and Portuguese). It took Lincoln to finally step up and take a huge (and, in human terms, enormously costly) stand to abolish slavery in America once and for all.
Luigi Novi Wrote: No, but those regimes either posed a threat to the U.S. directly, or it was believed, indirectly through the scourge of communism.
Through the Lend Lease program, FDR helped the Russian communists against the Nazi threat at a time when Germany was NOT a threat to U.S. national security (as a matter of fact, we were still a declared neutral power). The Korean War and Vietnam were, at best, MARGINAL theoretical threats to our national security. However, by comparison, problems in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East ARE direct and serious threats to our national security.
Jeffrey S. Frawley wrote: “I would assume the reason most people oppose this war is that it appears to be sacrificing American, allied and Iraqi lives to achieve nothing of dire need to America.”
Whaaat? I hate to break this to you, but a loose cannon in the Middle East is a HUGE threat to our national security and the national security of our allies and trading partners. That plastic keyboard you are typing on, and the car you drive, the containers your food comes in, and most of the other niceties and essentials in your life, are due largely to that black, gooky stuff pumped out of oil wells in and around that area you say we need not be concerned with.
Michael Brunner wrote: “This comparison doesn't hold. The Iraq war is in a country the size of California, against an "enemy" who was no threat to anyone outside the Iraqi borders. WWI was fought through all of Europe, most of the Pacific & most of North Africa against 2 enemies who were invading every country they could get to. And we defeated both those enemies in less time then we have so far taken in Iraq.”
First, you put “enemy” in quotes like Bush and Cheney were the only people in the U.S. who perceived Saddam as a serious and dire enemy to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Most people on both sides of the aisle in Congress, along with the presidential administrations of Bush Sr. and Clinton, publicly stated so over and over again. The quotes are everywhere. All you have to do is look them up.
Second, what difference does it make that WW II was fought in a large theater, and the Iraq War in a smaller one? That’s irrelevant. So is the WW II time frame. The key thing to remember is that the U.S. lost 400,000 troops during WW II, and a total of nearly 50 million people died.
Third, as I mentioned earlier, exactly when is it OK to sacrifice troops and collateral civilians when the president is deciding whether or not to go to war? And how many troops and collateral civilians is it OK to sacrifice?
That’s a trick question, because there is no “right” answer.
Each president has had to make his own call about when and why to go to war. Historically, you may think some presidents who opted to go to war made the right choice, but do you really think most of the tens of thousands (or tens of millions) of noncombatants who died as a result of those wars would have agreed with you?
The fact is, Roosevelt's fundamental reason for going to war against Germany was basically the same as Bush II's reason for invading Iraq... and Clinton's for invading Haiti... and Reagan's for invading Grenada... and Bush Sr.'s for invading Panama: to free the people living under, and eliminate the perceived threat, of a military dictatorship.
Here is just one example, from May 1st, 2003:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
He does believe Saddam had some ties and/or backed Al-Qaeda and Iraq would have been a perfect safe haven for future attacks.
You don't know what he believes. Aside from him, nobody knows that. You only know what he claims to believe, or have believed.
Let’s say that in 1940, Roosevelt had said, “Hey, instead of fighting the Germans and Japanese, let’s just make a deal with them, and urge the Russians and everyone else to do the same. Europe and Asia will not be ravaged, tens of millions of lives will be saved -- especially hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. After all, the MAJORITY of people living under the Nazis and the Japanese will be just fine.”
But that’s not what happened. Instead, Roosevelt opted to plunge us into a war that killed nearly 50 million people....
The Civil War was just one example I cited. In reality, where a president decides to commit troops to battle, whether it’s in our own back yard or in Europe, really doesn’t matter. Wherever it may be, lots and lots of soldiers and civilians are going to die in the process.
And so what if Iraq didn’t invite us into their country to free their slaves? I don’t recall Germany inviting us into their territory during WW II to free their slaves either.
As for pushing to liberate child-labor slaves in Asia, that’s fine by me!...
It took Lincoln to finally step up and take a huge (and, in human terms, enormously costly) stand to abolish slavery in America once and for all.
No, but those regimes either posed a threat to the U.S. directly, or it was believed, indirectly through the scourge of communism.Through the Lend Lease program, FDR helped the Russian communists against the Nazi threat at a time when Germany was NOT a threat to U.S. national security (as a matter of fact, we were still a declared neutral power). The Korean War and Vietnam were, at best, MARGINAL theoretical threats to our national security. However, by comparison, problems in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East ARE direct and serious threats to our national security....
First, you put “enemy” in quotes like Bush and Cheney were the only people in the U.S. who perceived Saddam as a serious and dire enemy to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Most people on both sides of the aisle in Congress, along with the presidential administrations of Bush Sr. and Clinton, publicly stated so over and over again. The quotes are everywhere. All you have to do is look them up....
Each president has had to make his own call about when and why to go to war. Historically, you may think some presidents who opted to go to war made the right choice, but do you really think most of the tens of thousands (or tens of millions) of noncombatants who died as a result of those wars would have agreed with you?
The fact is, Roosevelt's fundamental reason for going to war against Germany was basically the same as Bush II's reason for invading Iraq... and Clinton's for invading Haiti... and Reagan's for invading Grenada... and Bush Sr.'s for invading Panama: to free the people living under, and eliminate the perceived threat, of a military dictatorship.
You are trying to establish Principle™ to the 2003 Iraq Invasion by citing Principled™ analogies from US History, or precedents of the cold war forgiven by present conventional wisdom.
However, by lying to the public ~1000x on the issue of Irag alone -- saying they had evidence of things they had no actual evidence of (there's a public search database) -- Bush has established that he is Unprincipled.™ Your analogies were not Observably Hostile to Principle™ as the Bush administration has been. Nothing analogous to those lies to the public were present in your analogies or forgiven precedents. Slavery, Pearl Harbor, and the Communist Revolution were not fabricated by the presidents of their time.
By comparison, Joseph McCarthy got a generation of radicals blacklisted from the media. George W. Bush instead killed hundreds of thousands of people and traded in a dollar in stability for the 3¢ of getting rid Saddam Hussein. Please put aside the protectionist sniveling for once and try to establish some kind of attachment with reality.
R. Maheras -
And so what if Iraq didn’t invite us into their country to free their slaves? I don’t recall Germany inviting us into their territory during WW II to free their slaves either.
Maybe you recall that Germany declared war on us?
Most people on both sides of the aisle in Congress, along with the presidential administrations of Bush Sr. and Clinton, publicly stated so over and over again. The quotes are everywhere. All you have to do is look them up.
Yes, other people called Saddam a threat, but none of them engaged in an invasion that they knew would would kill thousands of soldiers.
what difference does it make that WW II was fought in a large theater, and the Iraq War in a smaller one?
The deference is that we were able to defeat 2 global spanning, aggressive empires in less time than we could defeat a small contained nation with almost no military. It is relevant because we had to beat back these empires from their outer reaches to their homeland to do so. It is relevant because they were conquering every country they could, whereas Saddam was a threat to noone but the Iraqi people. Ans with the no-fly zones he wasn't even a threat to the entire nation.
Roosevelt's fundamental reason for going to war against Germany
Roosevelt didn't go to war with Germany until they declared war on us. Roosevelt went to war with Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor.
black, gooky stuff pumped out of oil wells in and around that area you say we need not be concerned with.
We can also get oil from Canada, Russia, Venezeula & from our own oil wells. Add the underused ability to create non-oil technologies, and we don't need mideast oil as much as you believe we do.
life is much better for them now than it had been at any time under nearly three decades of Saddam’s rule
Except for the loss of electricity, water, overburdened hospitals, sectarian violence, colloria outbreaks, suicide bombings, womens loss of freedoms, food shortages, buildings reduced to rubble, I'm sure things are just peachy.
Seeing some of these drug-related posts and the "It doesn't hurt anyone else" theme going on, take it from me. It hurts other people. From the people in the other car when a toked-up driver hits them or the family of the user when they OD, it hurts other people.
It sure does, Sean. My point is, not everything that has the potential to hurt other people should be a crime. And I'd never understood how making it a crime helps drug addicts and their families. It never helped mine one iota. It seems the trouble it causes (more people in jail, drug commerce empowering organized crime, further social stigma to drug users, etc.) far outweights any benefits repressive policies could have.
Seeing some of these drug-related posts and the "It doesn't hurt anyone else" theme going on, take it from me. It hurts other people. From the people in the other car when a toked-up driver hits them...
Which is why I never said anything about how it should be legal to smoke weed and drive immediately afterwards, just that it should be legal to smoke weed. At the very least it should not be punishable by prison time. We have more than 1% of U.S. adults in prison right now for the first time ever. It's time to seriously consider how many of those people are truly threats to society and whether putting them there helps or hurts.
...or the family of the user when they OD, it hurts other people.
As far as I know you cannot OD on marijuana.
As for any long-term effects resulting from excessive use, there's the same risk of that with alcohol and nicotine.
"Roosevelt didn't go to war with Germany until they declared war on us. Roosevelt went to war with Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor."
No, Roosevelt just bent over backwards aiding the enemies of Germany until Germany declared war on us.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have. But he got us involved long before Germany declared war.
Roosevelt's fundamental reason for going to war against Germany was basically the same as Bush II's reason for invading Iraq...Roosevelt didn't go to war with Germany until they declared war on us. Roosevelt went to war with Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor.
No, Roosevelt just bent over backwards aiding the enemies of Germany until Germany declared war on us.
Your sheltering the FDR analogy for GWB is detached from reality. Please put down the Republican Kool-Aid and pick yourself up a big steaming cup of Why-don't-you-look-where-you're-going. It's always in season.
Pat Nolan speaks from his back side:I'll be crucified saying this but if Clinton was in the White House and he was the one to do all this with Iraq we would have a complete 180 as far as news coverage. The talking heads on TV would be spinning it to be the greatest thing the US has ever done.
And which talking heads are you referring to?
Look, I know you far right types can only work if you pretend to be the victim (Oh, that 5% population is attacking my 95% religion!. Oh, that 10% lifestyle is attacking my 90% lifestyle...Oh! The have not's actually want to have!) but can you stay in some sense of reality?
Let's list the pundits:
On the Right:
Bill ORielly
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Lou Dobbs
Those Fox and Friends folks
Brit Hume
Neil Cavuto
Chris Wallace
Greta Van Susteren
Pat Buchanan
Joe Scarburough
Chris Matthews
on the Left:
Keith Olbermann
Alan Combs
...
...
...
I guess we'll go with Dan Abrams too, though he seems to more be along to try to get some of Olbermann's ratings.
So really..where are the lefty talkers that you and your ilk do so go on about?
To be fair, Scavenger, I'm not entirely sure that Lou Dobbs qualifies as right-wing on issues other than immigration. Chris Matthews can be a dick sometimes, but he doesn't seem like a complete righty either. And while I don't watch Fox News, I think that I read Van Susteren was reasonably fair (although that is obviously not saying much by Fox News standards).
But yeah, all of those others you listed definitely qualify.
I wasn't paying attention to the news when Kosovo got bombed, so I have no memories of what the coverage was like. Can anybody tell me?
Btw, if I had been paying attention back then and if the bombing resulted in the deaths of civilians, I would've probably been opposed to that too. Makes no difference to me who orders that kind of thing, which party they're from; I don't believe in it.
Roosevelt just bent over backwards aiding the enemies of Germany until Germany declared war on us.
Go back and read your history books. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan, Then, being Japan's ally, Germany declared war on the U.S.
Yes, we helped our allies through the Lend-Lease program, but we weren't actually involved until the above chain of events. This was hardly "bending over backwards" aiding Germany's enemies (Who, by the way, were our allies).
I wasn't paying attention to the news when Kosovo got bombed, so I have no memories of what the coverage was like.
IIRC, It was a lot of "Clinton's trying to distract from the Lewinsky scandal" & "He's wagging the dog".
Posted by Scavenger at March 25, 2008 12:14 PM
Pat Nolan speaks from his back side:
and Scavenger speaks from behind his keyboard:
far right, please
So really..where are the lefty talkers that you and your ilk do so go on about?
Can't speak for all the ilk but even after eliminating some of the more questionable examples of "right wingers" (Chris Matthews??? Not liking Hillary doesn't make you a right winger, does it?) we have:
Most of the ladies on The View
Jesse Jackson
Everyone at Air America
Arianna Huffington
Almost everyone at the Huffington post
Bill Maher
Katie Couric
Andy Rooney
Bill Moyers
Richard Cohen
Maureen Dowd
Al Hunt
Eric Alterman
Bill Press
Mark Shields
Nina Totenberg
And plenty more.
Of course, one can argue that none of them are liberal, assuming one defines liberal differently. I've seen some folks say that only Olberman is liberal and try to justify it by claiming that others fail the test by adhering to some non-liberal viewpoint. (they do not seem to see the irony in then labeling as
'conservative" anyone who is not equally pure in their ideology but there you are).
I also point out that although I think it's safe to say that the above people tilt left on most issues that is not meant as a criticism. It just cracks me up when someone with perfectly respectable liberal opinions feels obligated to pretend to be middle of the road, as though one has to be a complete knee jerk ideologue to qualify as a true liberal.
I was going to submit my own list but Bill beat me to it. I would like to add though:
NBC
ABC
CBS
PBS
BBC
CNN
MSNBC
Yes, yes, the entire world is against the poor, poor conservatives. If only they weren't so picked on and victimized. Perhaps we should put them on the Endangered Species list...
I'd challenge a few of your list, Bill, mostly because I think some of them don't qualify as pundits per se. Jesse Jackson?
I'd also question Katie Couric (although I don't really watch her enough to have any really clear idea).
A few of your others, while definitely left-leaning, are really print columnists rather than talking heads. I'd be fine with including them on the liberal side, but only if we also add on folks like David Brooks, William Kristol, etc. on the right.
Lastly, I'd also ask how many of them are really active these days. Bill Moyers is more or less retired at this point, for example (a huge pity, IMO) -- and while maybe it's just me, I can't remember the last time I heard a peep from Bill Press.
TWL
Posted by: Patrick Calloway at March 25, 2008 06:29 PM
Yes, yes, the entire world is against the poor, poor conservatives. If only they weren't so picked on and victimized. Perhaps we should put them on the Endangered Species list...
WOW! I dont recall claiming victim status. We were talking about Right and Left pundits and debating who has more and who is harder on certain Pres.
Its good to see you use your real name though.
Keep it up, mate 8)
Sorry Pat, I'll cop to being in a really bad mood when I wrote that, and that whole "Woe is us, the whole evol Mainstream Media is biased against us, even though we're the real majority of the world (just ask us)" tune that certain conservatives insist on playing in any discussion of this nature is a bit of a red flag for me. The interminably long political season this election year is wearing on me, I admit. I apologize for misinterpreting your post, but that's how it hit me when I read it.
I disagree with your asessment that most of the major news orginizations of the world have a bias against conservatives, but YMMV (and obviously does... ;)
Sorry Bill, really wasn't trying to erect any crow terrification devices. I tend to be flammable enough as it is, without adding straw to the mix...
I would like to add though:
Which apparently means to you that anybody but Fox News is a dirty stinking liberal.
And you have the gall to say you're not claiming to be a victim?
I'll put things differently: everybody but Fox News is at least sane and has an idea of what news really is, even if they aren't perfect at giving it.
For all this bullshit about the "liberal media", nobody is giving Obama a free pass over his pastor. Nobody is giving Clinton a free pass over her comments about being in Kosovo.
And nobody gave Clinton a pass in his 8 years in office, contrary to the opinions of those on the right who have their heads stuck in the sand hoping nobody notices how willfully ignorant they are of what goes on around them.
Posted by Patrick Calloway at March 25, 2008 09:37 PM
Sorry Pat, I'll cop to being in a really bad mood when I wrote that, and that whole "Woe is us, the whole evol Mainstream Media is biased against us, even though we're the real majority of the world (just ask us)" tune that certain conservatives insist on playing in any discussion of this nature is a bit of a red flag for me. The interminably long political season this election year is wearing on me, I admit. I apologize for misinterpreting your post, but that's how it hit me when I read it.
Thats cool Patrick, Today was a real kick in the @ss at work and didnt do much for my mood either.
No hard feelings.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at March 25, 2008 10:07 PM
I would like to add though:
Which apparently means to you that anybody but Fox News is a dirty stinking liberal.
Nope, "I would like to add though:" means pretty much "I would like to add though:" It doesnt even rhyme with "dirty stinking liberal" wait if you say it over and over enough it kind of does rhyme.
oops my bad.....
And you have the gall to say you're not claiming to be a victim?
yes thats me, Always "not the victim"
or
Which apparently means to you that anybody who doesnt denounce Fox news must be a dirty stinking conservative but I wouldnt put words in your mouth.
I'll put things differently: everybody but Fox News is at least sane and has an idea of what news really is, even if they aren't perfect at giving it.
How dare you trash my Fox news!!! Whats next? Rush Limbaughs a doo doo head?
Which apparently means to you that anybody who doesnt denounce Fox news must be a dirty stinking conservative but I wouldnt put words in your mouth.
But they gave such delicious relief during the Mark Foley page-scandal by labeling him a democrat. How can you not love Fox News?
Posted by: Mike at March 25, 2008 11:30 PM
But they gave such delicious relief during the Mark Foley page-scandal by labeling him a democrat. How can you not love Fox News?
I didnt see that, which is weird, because apparently thats the only news I watch.
Who did the labeling? I have a feeling it was Sean Hannity.
I was wondering when someone was going to bring Ann Coulter up.
I'd challenge a few of your list, Bill, mostly because I think some of them don't qualify as pundits per se. Jesse Jackson?
I expected that. Like I said, it depends on one's definition of liberal or even left.
My own perception is that too many liberals, in an attempt to make their plight seem more lonely than it is, sometimes go to extremes to disqualify people who are obviously and sometimes even proudly liberal. Some good examples have been presented above. It would be too easy to take Mike's post as a typical example but even at my most partisan I would not pretend to hold him up as a typical example of left of center thinking (please keep my generosity in mind the next time some right wing tardspaz spouts off here, ok?).
Craig, on the other hand, is worth responding to. When he says "For all this bullshit about the "liberal media", nobody is giving Obama a free pass over his pastor. Nobody is giving Clinton a free pass over her comments about being in Kosovo." I'm left to wonder what exactly it would take to qualify as liberal--a 100% across the board determination to suppress every bit of bad news about liberals? A refusal to acknowledge stories that cast a liberal in a bad light? Suppression of any information that might hurt the politicians who favor liberal ideas? That wouldn't make them liberal journalists. They wouldn't be journalists at all.
Hillary said a whopper and CBS news even had video footage that showed it to be a lie. What, they should have sat on it? Failure to do so means they have a conservative bias? Do you, Craig, feel that you have to defend all liberals all the time, right or wrong? Not from what I've heard from you--yet I would not put your liberal bona fides in question for that.
(this would also mean that Fox News wouldn't be conservative, since one can find times that they have reported bad news about conservatives. If I said "Fox news, conservative??? They didn't give Larry Craig a free pass!" I don't think that would fly.)
Anyway, back to Tim. I'd list Jesse as a pundit, sure. He gets on more talk shows than most elected politicians, even hosted a show for 8 years on CNN (Both Sides with Jesse Jackson).
Bill Press has both a radio show and a newspaper column. I saw him on TV recentlym not sure where--I tyhink it was something about Hillary (and I can't remember if he was for her or Obama. Pretty safe to say he wasn't for McCain :)
I'd include Katie Couric for my perception that she tosses mostly softballs to her favorites and only gets tough with conservatives. I think Matt Laurer is just as liberal but more likely to be equally tough to both sides. I know she is liberal on a number of issues--can anyone tell me a position Ms Couric has that does not fall on the left side of the equation?
I guess some of the names listed are more print than TV though I don't think any of them have ever turned down a chance to appear. The only one I haven't seen recently is Alterman, which is just as well--for a guy who pulls no punches in print he came off very nervous on the few TV appearances I saw.
For the first day of Fox's coverage, they appended the D for democrat to Mark Foley's name. Were you under the impression their conservative line-up was due to some kind of fidelity to the truth?
I was wondering when someone was going to bring Ann Coulter up.
What complaints do you have against Ann Coulter, and why don't you hold them against her pimps at Fox News?
Posted by: Mike at March 25, 2008 11:53 PM
For the first day of Fox's coverage, they appended the D for democrat to Mark Foley's name. Were you under the impression their conservative line-up was due to some kind of fidelity to the truth?
Nope, simply just wanted to know if someone mouthed the words "Democrat Mark Foley" It would have made a good sound bite for somebody.
What complaints do you have against Ann Coulter, and why don't you hold them against her pimps at Fox News?
No complaints but just thought she would have factored into the "whos most evil" list earlier
thats all.
Believe it or not, not all republicans like her. I still think her whole persona is a bit of a shitck.
Now Michael Savage is a whole different story, that guy is nuts.
Do you, Craig, feel that you have to defend all liberals all the time, right or wrong?
No, but as I said, it's bullshit to think that anybody outside of Fox News is merely projecting "liberal bias".
But what's apparent is that conservatives expect such stories that go against their candidates and their side to be suppressed or not covered because, perish the thought, NBC and CBS and, yes, even Fox News, are in it for the ratings more than for any perceived bias.
Fox News gets pinned as the news network of the right because they are exactly that. They may hide behind the moniker of "fair and balanced", but they are anything but. Fox News lately has even gone so far as to allow bias to seem into their commentary of Democrats because Dems are refusing to appear on their shows... I can't imagine why they would do that. Can you?
But just because Fox News bends its knee to the Altar of the Right-wing doesn't mean everybody else in news is doing the same for the Left.
Actually, I'd say a bigger problem with Fox News is that it's not a news network. The same goes for most of what's on MSNBC and a lot of CNN and/or Headline News these days.
It's not news, it's gossip or opinion shows. And some of it is nothing more than tabloid garbage like Nancy Grace.
As a whole, the media is not out to report the news, they want to make it. Which makes the argument of "liberal bias" a rather pathetic one to keep falling back upon, as the right is so quick to do.
It would be too easy to take Mike's post as a typical example but even at my most partisan I would not pretend to hold him up as a typical example of left of center thinking (please keep my generosity in mind the next time some right wing tardspaz spouts off here, ok?).
Craig, on the other hand, is worth responding to.
Thank you for literally disqualifying nothing I've said. It's a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.
I'd include Katie Couric for my perception that she tosses mostly softballs to her favorites and only gets tough with conservatives. I think Matt Laurer is just as liberal but more likely to be equally tough to both sides. I know she is liberal on a number of issues--can anyone tell me a position Ms Couric has that does not fall on the left side of the equation?
I would have thought covering stories on and raising money against various cancers might have qualified. Who knew not wanting cancer was radical?
Nope, simply just wanted to know if someone mouthed the words "Democrat Mark Foley"
Now there's an idea for a $2.99/minute chatline: Deviants infiltrating and subverting your wholesome political party are waiting for your call. 1-800-Pink-Scare
I'm left to wonder what exactly it would take to qualify as liberal--a 100% across the board determination to suppress every bit of bad news about liberals?
I'd say in order for there to be "liberal bias" it would take a real reluctance to report any bad news about liberals, and even then trying to spin it so that it doesn't look so bad. That would be coupled with a bloodthirsty desire to smear conservatives every time they have an opportunity to do so.
Basically liberal versions of FNC, the New York Post, etc.
"For all this bullshit about the "liberal media", nobody is giving Obama a free pass over his pastor."
Don't catch Countdown on MSNBC too much, huh?
Because MSNBC ghettoizes their money-making liberal markets to Keith Olbermann, they didn't put Dr Tucker Carlson on life support with their conservative affirmative action? I don't think so.
I'm left to wonder what exactly it would take to qualify as liberal--a 100% across the board determination to suppress every bit of bad news about liberals? A refusal to acknowledge stories that cast a liberal in a bad light? Suppression of any information that might hurt the politicians who favor liberal ideas? That wouldn't make them liberal journalists. They wouldn't be journalists at all.
Thanks for implicitly acknowledging that most of Fox News doesn't practice journalism. :-)
A real answer to your question is that there's a difference between "being liberal" and "reporting with a liberal bias." Having talking heads who happen to lean in one direction or another does not, in my opinion, reflect such a bias. Having ALL of your talking heads, or 90+% of them, lean in the same direction would reflect such a bias -- and when it leaks from the commentary into the reporting (such as in the examples Rob Brown gave above), then that's having a bias and letting it seriously get in the way of your job.
That's why I think a lot of the complaints about the "liberal media" are hogwash. Sure, some of the pundits lean left, but it's very hard to find a news outlet that routinely reports the news in a left-wing-spinning kind of way. For every time you've got the NYT running a questionable story about McCain, for instance (which I didn't support), you've got someone like Judith Miller beating the war drums and presenting false information as factual. That, to me, does not mean it's skewing one direction or another -- it means that it's not perfect.
Anyway, back to Tim. I'd list Jesse as a pundit, sure. He gets on more talk shows than most elected politicians, even hosted a show for 8 years on CNN (Both Sides with Jesse Jackson).
Fair enough; I'd forgotten about the show he'd hosted. Also fair enough on Bill Press; apparently I need to watch more television. (Or not.)
TWL
Rob, the question I was answering was who could be considered liberal. Now as to whether or not any of the people listed are guilty of bias, that's a different question and one far more difficult to answer--it's often a matter of perception. Simply being tough on a conservative, especially when they deserve it, does not make one guilty of liberal bias. That's why i find it amusing when lazier pontificates claim that so and so can't be considered liberal because look at how they reported on Bill Clinton's problems (as though the definition of "liberal" equals "willing to accept anything the Clintons dish out, no questions asked".
I'm surprised at the lengths that some liberals will go to not admit to being liberal or to list others as being liberal. Evidentially being against cancer is a conservative position--who knew? Me, I'd say that's something that any reasonable person would support, regardless of political persuasion but for some politics is everything. Not enough hugs from momma during the cavity prone years, that's my guess.
"Both Sides with Jesse Jackson" left the air with the Clinton administration. I'm glad you'll feel holding republicans to Fox News 8 years after they're go off the air is fair game.
Oh, but wait:
--can anyone tell me a position Ms Couric has that does not fall on the left side of the equation?...
Me, I'd say that's something that any reasonable person would support, regardless of political persuasion but for some politics is everything. Not enough hugs from momma during the cavity prone years, that's my guess.
You flip-flop portraying Katie Couric as reasonable or unreasonable as it serves your agenda of the minute. Thank you for contradicting yourself, underscoring all you have against me is your Need™ to bully me.
So saying Katie is liberal equals calling her "unreasonable" in your book? Interesting. I don't think the terms are interchangeable but that's a personal call.
Aww, Mike, I really don't mean to bully you. I know you've had it tough and the affront of having people who dare to think differently from you must be a constant source of angst. Since, as PAD pointed out, you are probably incapable of even understanding when you get things wrong, I promise not to respond to you any more in this thread since it will only hurt your feelings and serve no purpose.
Thank you for disqualifying Katie Couric as evidence of a liberal bias in media, and thank you for admitting all you have against me is your need to bully me. Again, it's a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.
Get back on topic. How secure is Iraq after the surge? The Brits pulled out of Basra, wasn't it? This left the militia in control, not the Iraqi government. The Kurds in the north are pretty much self rule. So, what is the real accomplishment? I am a card carrying Democrat so I say these next things with hesitation. I believe those who seek control in Iraq are waiting to see either how our elections go or what they can do to screw it up. I have a bad feeling about what may come. My question to everyone here: Do any of you really want to vote for any of these idiots running for president? McCain is confused, Hillary lies and Obama is obscure at best on his policy answers. I wish Powell was running, but GW messed that up when he should have listened to Powell. Where have you gone Teddy?
As far as a liberal bias in the media, nobody watches CNN and CNBC. The nightly news are a reporting joke. The morning shows care more about Britney and LiLo than Dafur or Iraq unless George and Bono are doing a charity. Rush, Sean and Mark comment on their "news." I honestly prefer Savage. He may be nutty at times, but at least he is honest. He doesn't hide his true personality.
I have another question regarding Rev. Wright: Was Obama lying when he said he never before heard his preacher speak these things? I think he was.
Concerning Rev. Wright, Christopher Bird (a.k.a. Mightygodking) says this:
"Jeremiah Wright occasionally says passionate things. He is a preacher. Preachers do not speak in gentle, conciliatory tones all that often; it is not a job that requires one hundred percent temperance, after all. But accusing Jeremiah Wright of being a racist based on one ten-second snippet of video taken out of context from a twenty-minute sermon, claiming that said ten seconds is representative of twenty years of preaching? (Bear in mind the church is one of the largest mixed-race churches in America, so if Jeremiah Wright is a racist then a lot of his flock are self-hating whiteys.) Lest we forget, he’s also a former decorated Marine. If occasionally he gets pissed off at America for treating black people poorly - well, tough. Black people are officially allowed to have complex feelings about America. They get permission. Deal with it."
I agree wholeheartedly.