The New Republic Makes Stuff Up

TNR makes stuff up; Kevin Drum echoes it without any attempt at fact-checking; Stuart Buck nails them both.

Now, let's be fair and try to apply the standards of contemporary left-leaning journalism, as exemplifed by Dan Rather and the Killian forgeries. The TNR charge, that Fox is as guilty of making stuff up as CBS, is probably something TNR has heard from many sources. Therefore, the fact that the specific instance they cite is not correct is beside the point - the example they cite is simply "false but accurate".

At this point, we think the burden is on TNR or Mr. Drum to produce some transcripts showing that Fox made the phony picture presentation as they assert. How they will explain the apparent fact that Fox presented the situation accurately on many ocassions is a puzzle to me (don't we call those "corrections" or "retractions"?), but I have no doubt that they will want to address that as well.

As if.

MORE: If and when the TNR prints some explanation of this, I will miss it, since I am not a registered subscriber. Feel free to keep me advised.

UPDATE: We see that Kevin Drum has graciously linked to Stuart Buck.

Comments

[Dave Eaton]

You know you have someone's pants down when they pull out the "tu quoque" defense. Furthermore, when right-leaning (or 'fair and balanced') media makes a factual error, people are after them hammer and tong. And rightfully so.

What does it say when your position shifts from "The memos PROVE Bush lied/was AWOL/eats little bunnies" to
"The memos reflect the underlying truth that Bush lied/was AWOL/eats little bunnies" to "So's your old man, you mean old conservatives!"? To a grownup, it sounds like pouting...

[Brian]

Considering the fact Fox doesn't provide complete transcripts on its site and the fact that finding the partial transcript is a pain in the ass, I'm not sure whta to say.

I do find it funny, however, that you insist that TNR provides a transcript for what is a perfectly believable claim, but then go on to say that they have described the situation accurately without providing any evidence. Is this some sort of attempt at humor?

[Brian]

By "they," I mean Fox news personalities. Also, there needs to be a correction: "...what..."

[TM]

I do find it funny, however... Is this some sort of attempt at humor?

Yes. You?

[MaDr]

Gio easy on Mr Drum - he's had an awful 10 days. I believe he's had some similar problems with his defense of Rathergate.

[Slartibartfast]

Try reading the Buck link, Brian. Hopefully, all will be made clear.

[abb1]

In February 2004, for instance, Fox News broadcasters Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, and John Gibson all showed a photo of John Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda on a podium at an anti-Vietnam War rally in the 1970s. It turns out the photo was fake.
...
Chris Wallace: And I want to show you some fascinating pictures.

Excuse me? To refute the accusations against Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, and John Gibson he posts a quote from Chris Wallace? And doesn't even give a link?

Don't you think something is rotten here?

Yeah, and does this mean that if, say, Letterman says that the memos are fake you are going to lay off Rather? Somehow I doubt...

[TexasToast]

Hmm. I read the link, and the TNR piece. One picture was fake and the other was not. Obviously the TNR writer missed the "obvious" distinction! I suspect that he, like I would imagine most listeners , heard "Kerry Fonda Photo" and didn't confirm his memory very well. Since he must be part of the VLWC, its obvious it was an intentional misrepresentation of the fair and balanced folks at Fox.

I count Buck quoting Fox personalities using John Kerry, Jane Fonda and photo(s) in the same sentence at least 8 times in about a week. This photo was newsworthy enough to refer to 1 again and 2 again and 3 again and 4 again and 5 again and 6 again and 7 again and 8 again? Do ya think Fox might be tryin' to link Kerry/Fonda/protest in the listeners mind? Would they do something like that? Naaaaaaah, ya think?.

It's quite clever actually. And now we get to do it again! (smile)

Meanwhile, another car bomb goes off in Iraq and 20 more people die. 20 over here, 50 over there, 3 more westeners kidnapped out of a home in a third place, and we seem to be shut up in our firebases until after the election. Even the "green zone" is not secure! Sheesh. FUBAR.

[capt joe]

yeah, funny that.

When the left thought the memos were real, all they wanted to talk about was them, not Iraq.

Now that Rather, Kos, and Atrios are caught with massive egg, time to change the subject.

Sure, Iraq's important, but Tom sets the discussion here and this is, afterall, his blog.

[RucksackWanderer]

Tom of course has the freedom to write about whatever he pleases. But I can see why Texas Toast is frustrated. As the news in Iraq has grown steadily worse over the past two weeks, the pro-war blogosphere has gone silent. Instead, we have three very smart bloggers (Tom, Glenn Reynolds, and Roger Simon)writing almost all their posts on a relatively minor story (Rathergate).

If the media is so liberally biased, then what's the real story on Iraq? What are the MSM overemphasizing or overlooking?

What's happening in Iraq goes beyond the winner of this election, or the embarrassing error of a major news network. Quite literally the futue of our foreign policy is at stake- and decisions made now will affect the next several administrations.

I can't fault Tom for writing about what he finds interesting- that's his choice. But if someone- anyone-can dissect the current events in Iraq from a center-right perspective I'd be very appreciative for the tip.

[The Kid]

Yo, Bag Boy, er RucksackWanderer. Try this and ">http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/iraq-part-2-while-there-may-be-wide.html"> this.

There’s a good general backgrounder here.

And here’s wise counsel that we should be rather, er, very Rather-like in Iraq!

[Les Jones]

Kevin Drum has updated his post with a link to Stuart Buck's article.

[Joe Mealyus]

I second the sentiments of the posters who think that the media is not covering Iraq very well, to the benefit of the Bush administration, but that Telis Demos TNR article was amazingly bad, the worst I can recall seeing, even before discovering that one of his anti-Hannity examples was phony. In telling us that what Hannity does is worse than what Rather did, his other example purported to show Hannity guilty of the ultimate crime: "...recycling Bush talking points that don't stand up to any measure of intellectual honesty..." The idea that opinion-journalist intellectual dishonesty (i.e. opinion-journalist standard practice) is worse than regular-journalist fraud is pretty mind-boggling.

TNR used the to be the liberal magazine with perspective. Now they (at least on occasion) just recycle inane left-wing prejudices. Replacing Demos' article with "Fox News sucks" in big letters would have at least been concise.

[Glenn Reynolds]

Hey, Rucksack Dude:

On Iraq, try reading this post, or this post, or this post, or maybe this roundup post. And that's just what I've done in the last 3 days. . . .

But you know, the Iraq war is kinda stable -- it's a gradual chewing-up of the insurgents until after the election, when we move against Syria and Iran. Dan Rather, on the other hand, has CBS in the kind of massive collapse-from-within that we saw in Iraq in April of 2003. So that's where the developments are at the moment.

[Brian]

Slartibartfast,

Buck's defense is decent.

[Brian]

Glenn,

Do you really think it's all a lot better than it seems in Iraq?

[Glenn Reynolds]

Brian: Depends on what you mean by "seems." There's no massive popular uprising against the US. There's factional fighting with the Sunnis -- most unwisely -- holding out for a return to power. My biggest fear is that it will lead to near-genocide against the Sunnis if they keep it up.

That's not good, but it's not what everyone else is worrying about.

[Thomas J. Jackson]

Credibility depends on accurate reporting of facts. CBS and its defenders have lost any claim to credibility due to not be fooled but rather choosing to try to pass off fraudulent documents knowing they were questionable. Iamgine what a court would do to any lawyer who attempted this in court. A defense that says even though the documents are frauds the story is accurate only serves to underline the lack of professionalism and judgement that we have come to expectfrom the traditional media and why these institutions are losing to the blogs, cable and talk radio. We are in the midst of a revolution, in the same fashion the printing press changed the world we are seeing the gate keeper role of the traditional media end.

As for Kevin Drum, his record of accurate reporting rivals Rather's record. Keep it up and he reach Michael Moore levels someday.

[Brian]

Glenn,

If things aren't as bad as they seem, why do we keep giving up portions of the country to insurgents? I've never thought that the insurgency constituted the vast majority of the country, but as you and I both know, they are committed and not going away. And the level of attacks have stepped up in recent weeks. It really does seem like we are losing.

[CalDevil]

Perhaps Telis Demos is merely a new nom de plume for the fabricator formerly known as Stephen Glass.

[mikem]

"It really does seem like we are losing."

Just wishful thinking perhaps. But hey, Cronkite made it work after Tet.

[TexasToast]

"It really does seem like we are losing."

"Just wishful thinking perhaps. But hey, Cronkite made it work after Tet."

Why on earth would anyone want us to lose? Criticism is not treason. Sounds like you want everybody to tell us the "truth" like Baghdad Bob.

[The Kid]

This report, admittedly from a less that reliable source, expresses US commanders’ confidence that they’ll quiet things down by December, in time for the elections. Falluja will be tough, but US forces are tougher. Why bother?

Counting on Elections

For all of their worries, Iraqi and United Nations workers say they are pushing ahead with plans to hold voting across the country in January. To help the Iraqis with the job, the United Nations has dispatched a team led by Carlos Valenzuela, who has overseen 15 elections in places including Liberia, Haiti, Angola and Cambodia.

Mr. Valenzuela said he was worried about the Iraqi elections, especially if the violence prevents candidates from campaigning and voters from registering. But he said in other violence-plagued countries, a wide array of people usually want to vote, largely because almost most everyone is unhappy with the status quo.

"People realize that they are stuck in a situation and that they have to move on to something else," Mr. Valenzuela said. "Elections can help achieve that."

Some Iraqis, too, believe that the prospect of elections could help transform the security environment here, as people begin to realize that the elections are inevitable and that they will be honest and fair.

One of them is Abdul Hussein Hindawi, the chairman of the Iraqi election commission. Mr. Hindawi believes that even the Sunni Arabs, who thrived under Saddam Hussein but who now find themselves a minority in the government, may finally decide that an election is something they do not want to miss.

"They look to their interests, first of all," Mr. Hindawi said.

I sure am glad about the bipartisan consensus – Joe Biden, Ricky Holbrooke, Michael Moore, Teresa Kerry, Jimmy Carter, and a host of other Democrats are all on board to support our troops and our foreign policy. There’s even a report that on Wednesday John Boy Edwards will file suit against “al Qaeda, the Baathist Party, Syria, Iran, and all Ob-Gyn specialists within the borders of Iraq” to submit to the will of the Iraqi people and "surrender 25% of gross oil revenue of Iran and Iraq for the next 25 years to the US Democrat Party, its heirs, and assigns.”

[Rucksack Wanderer]

Glenn,

OK, thanks for the heads up. It'd be nice the ratio of Rather to Iraq posts flip-flopped (insert John Kerry joke here) but why mess with your success?

It's ignorant- and dangerous- to equate criticizing the government with wishing the US loses the war. After all, don't we fight wars to protect our right to criticize them?

Glenn again-

Iran and Syria? Yikes. How about North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Uzbekistan?

[Brian]

"Just wishful thinking."

That's a despicable thing to say.

[Brian]

You know, maybe someone can tell me why we are slowly giving more and more ground to the insurgents. How does that reflect a stable atmosphere and positive turn of events?

[Cecil Turner]

"You know, maybe someone can tell me why we are slowly giving more and more ground to the insurgents."

The reports from the front tend to belie those stories:

So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it’s looking significantly better now than when I got here.

"Iran and Syria? Yikes. How about North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Uzbekistan?"

If the threat were Asian, African, or Caucasian terrorists, those would top the list. For Middle Eastern Islamist types . . .

[IceCold]

We don't have "firebases" in Iraq. Nearly all of our casualties result from patrolling, much of it aggressive, in the most dangerous areas. There isn't a square inch of the country we can't control if we choose to do so. The odds are impossibly long against the enemy -- they're a small, hated minority, who have the bad luck of being concentrated in oil-free areas. And their internal enemies happen to have the greatest military power in history on their side.

Unlike Glenn, I'm not worried about anti-Sunni pogroms (though that was an understandable fear prior to the war, and was one of many worst-case scenarios that didn't occur). I'm more disappointed at the depth of the intimidation still felt by the non-Sunnis, and even those Sunnis with a clue. If they'd shown even a bit of backbone and savvy, we'd be winding down our activites by now. (Yo, Sistani, I see Iraq's following Bremer's original plan to the letter -- nice move playing "independent" and messing things up, just to end up with the same deal!)

Unfortunately no Tet scenario is likely. The Iraqi enemy knows showing themselves equals vaporization -- and while they're happy to see Syrian and Lebanese and the odd Gulfie loser riff-raff blow themselves up on a mission, they prefer to live. It's a civil war (hello, what's the taboo against recognizing this obvious and mundane fact, anyway?), and not ours to lose, but avoiding an unacceptable outcome shouldn't prove too difficult.

[Steven Den Beste]

Rucksack, a man's got to know his own limits. He also has to understand his own interests.

We don't have the ability to solve all the world's problems all at once. We also aren't directly concerned with all the world's problems.

Zimbabwe is a real problem, but it isn't our problem. The same is true of Uzbekistan.

North Korea is a real problem, but every problem is different. In the case of North Korea, the problem is quite intractible mostly because the only nation which can force North Korea to change is China. Behind the scenes, Bush's foreign policy for the last couple of years has been to try to convince the Chinese to do so.

It makes no sense to argue that if we cannot solve every problem at once then we should not try to solve any of them. We do what we can do, and we choose the most important things we are capable of doing and do them first.

[Brian]

Cecil,

That link is interesting. I'm sure it's real, but it's interesting that it plays the reporting-negative-things-aids-the-enemy card.

Well anyway, if it's so good there, why are British troops being pulled out?

Regards,
Brian

[Cecil Turner]

"I'm sure it's real, but it's interesting that it plays the reporting-negative-things-aids-the-enemy card."

The more interesting thing to me is how well it meshes with other reports from the front, like this one. (And any military professional who didn't consider negative propaganda effects should turn in his/her commission.)

[Les Nessman]

""It really does seem like we are losing."

Just wishful thinking perhaps. But hey, Cronkite made it work after Tet."

I don't think anyone on this thread is like that. But there are some (including some Americans) who do think like that. Most are fringe nutjobs. None are pro-Bush. I would ask that the anti-Bush crowd be mindful that what they say does not go overboard and hurt our troops or aid our enemies.
Just friendly advice, is all.

[Brian]

Cecil,

I've seen things like that before, but I find it hard to believe that there's such a black and white contrast. Not everything is going to shit, but a lot of it appears to be. Why is that?

And why are we giving up more and more areas to the insurgents?

[Brian]

Les,

The problem is that any sort of criticism, be it vague, direct, or hysterical, is wrapped under the "Hate America" blanket. Sure, in some sense, actively working against the government would aid the enemy, but when people say that you shouldn't be so critical because it aids the enemy, they are taking it too far. Criticism does not amount to treason. After all, if we applied all of these standards, people like Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar would be aiding the enemy and turning against the country.

[Cecil Turner]

"And why are we giving up more and more areas to the insurgents?"

Why is the sky orange?

[Brian]

Cecil,

So you are claiming that we aren't turning over more areas to the insurgents? How's that?

[Cecil Turner]

Oh, now I have to prove a negative? I think not. You are welcome to support your claim that we are "giving up more and more areas to the insurgents."

[Brian]

Cecil,

I'll do that.

In the mean time, you prove to me that the situation isn't getting a lot worse.

[Brian]

Cecil,

Just do a simple Google News search with "areas that insurgents control." It appears we won't take Fallujah before January, for instance.

I am quite hesitant to say we lost it, but it doesn't seem to getting better in a lot of places.

[Cecil Turner]

"In the mean time, you prove to me that the situation isn't getting a lot worse."

I'm still not thrilled with the concept of proving a negative. Why don't I just wait for yours?

[Brian]

Look above. Do the Google News search.

[Cecil Turner]

We never controlled Fallujah (by that definition of "control"). That's not the same as "giving up more and more areas to the insurgents."

And after spending an entire thread disputing biased news stories, and posting two front-line reports that directly contradict those pessimistic accounts, I'm a bit nonplussed by your apparent position that they now constitute "proof."

[Brian]

Cecil,

Fallujah was just one example, and you are right, it's not the best example, but I figured it was general enough so that nobody would question it.

As for you directly proving me wrong, those two accounts can be met and then raised, so to speak. There are some positives, but like I have said, we seem to be losing.

Seriously go through Google News. You won't like what you see, because the picture painted isn't all that great. You could go read Gens. Odom and Joseph Hoar, who apparently aren't very positive about the plight in Iraq. (The computer I am on now is screwey, so I can't post the link, but go to Salon and go to Blumental's latest column.)

I don't think we have lost it, but it seems like we are losing it.

[pseudosophist]

Cecil:
Try reading this: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?ei=5090&en=f2344cc156ca79c7&ex=1252987200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position
(I apologize for not knowing how better to supply this link. any advice?)
Perhaps you've heard of the latest NIE on Iraq. Prepared by our government's intelligence community, people who one would expect to have access to information beyond the biased media accounts we receive, the NIE paints a picture of Iraq that just doesn't quite match the one you're trying to present. According to the NIE, the BEST case scenario is one in which Iraq can merely hope for tenuous stability ecnomically, politically, and in terms of security. The pessimism of the NIE stands in stark contrast to the happy talk eminating from the Bush Administration, and from the likes of you.

[drh]

rucksack et al, if you're looking for an objective perspective on what's happening in Iraq, why not take a look at the raw data yourself -- you can make your own conclusions. the brooking institute maintains the Iraqi Index that has all sorts of data on insurgents, economics, etc. and provides all sources if you want to dig further.

http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex/

[Warmongering Lunatic]

Perhaps you've heard of the latest NIE on Iraq. Prepared by our government's intelligence community, people who one would expect to have access to information beyond the biased media accounts we receive

. . . and who said WMDs were certainly in Iraq. (And no, not just because Bush pressured them to -- they said the same thing in 1998.)

Any sensible bureaucrat is going to give a pessimistic report, because it's the only way to cover his ass. Nobody gets in trouble for predicting 10,000 casulaties and there only being 10, despite being three orders of magnitude off; but if you predict 500 and there are 1,000, your butt is in the sling. Similarly, if you don't predict a civil war and it happens, your career is blighted; if you warn of one that never comes, you can simply say that the warning helped avoid it.

The fact is, we're not giving up ground; we've never clamped down in the Sunni Triangle, so there isn't any to give up. The casualty rate has been yoyo-ing, not steadily climbing or decreasing. There is no indication whatsoever things are getting worse in Iraq.

And the strength of the resistance . . . a mere thousand dead after a year and a half, war and occupation combined, in a country of 25 million? Only someone with no historical or international perspective would call that anything other than light resistance. And compared to the tens-of-thousands figured the antiwar activists were warning of, it's nothing less than a complete success.

[abb1]

For a wider perspective for you folks on what's happening in Iraq and elsewhere, I highly recommend this excellent article by prof. Chomsky The Resort to Force. Enjoy.

[Cecil Turner]

If you view Chomsky as a reliable source, you've made up your mind at the outset. (And anyone using the word "pretext" in the first sentence is preaching to the choir.)

[Jim Thomason]

You also have to love the "wider perspective" conceit. We poor mortals with our blinders on should pay attention to the enlightened Chomsky, I guess.

[abb1]

Huh? What's wrong with the word 'pretext'? Why don't you just read what he wrote. Don't be afraid. It won't bite and you won't turn into a commie.

And for you, Jim, since you don't like wider perspective, may I suggest a narrow one, it's hilarious: Shi'ite! Holy Shi'ite! by Gary Brecher, war nerd.

Cheers.

[Cecil Turner]

"What's wrong with the word 'pretext'?"

Nothing, if you assume the opposition is lying. Sure saves time over having to prove they're evil, lying, b*****ds.

"Why don't you just read what he wrote."

Okay, let's see . . . He makes the same conflations about war and criminal justice you do, hails bin Laden as a "symbol," ignores military-style attacks against American interests, assumes all violence is "provoked" by American responses, and denies an Osama-Afghanistan connection (at least to the point bombing would be justified). I'm a bit surprised you find such drivel convincing . . . Hey, there's an idea, let's have the DNC base its future ads on it, and let the electorate decide.

[Brian]

"The fact is, we're not giving up ground; we've never clamped down in the Sunni Triangle, so there isn't any to give up."

The fact that we are letting them control it doesn't speak highly for how it's going. But anyway, it's not just that area.

Seriously, Cecil, do a Google News search.

[Cecil Turner]

Again, the report from the (first) Marine major directly contradicts the NIE (and correctly points up the fact it's dated).

And Brian, please attribute your quotes correctly.

[Brian]

Cecil,

How the hell does what happened over the last six weeks directly change what was in the NIE?

And I wasn't trying to attribute that quote to you. I'm sorry that I didn't make that clearer.

[Cecil Turner]

"How the hell does what happened over the last six weeks directly change what was in the NIE?"

The NIE is based on data a lot more dated than six weeks (and the anonymous major is likely correct that the April "uprising" featured prominently in the estimates). The fact that the uprising didn't spread, and the general progress toward Iraqi control of the government are hopeful signs. The NIE conclusions are a bit overwrought in any event . . . as someone pointed out above, "civil war" is certainly an apt descriptor already.

Here's another report that disputes the gloomy picture painted by most MSM outlets (link from Instapundit). It appears to me more consistent with facts contained in various news reports.

[pseudosophist]

Cecil, do you feel the same way about the NIE as does the aptly named 'warmongering lunatic?' Are you going to dismiss that document as merely being bureaucrats covering their asses? Or are you going to acknowledge that things in Iraq are not going well? British intelligence has recently reached the same conclusions as the NIE. Are you going to dismiss them as well? What do you consider a legitimate source of information on the situation in Iraq?

[Birkel]

TM,

I can't understand why some of your commenters talk of the situation in Iraq "getting worse." After all, the press has been reporting things were getting worse since President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier. For example, August saw the fourth most casualties of any month since Baghdad fell.

Oh, wait, that would mean three months were worse. That doesn't jive with the 'getting worse' meme. In fact those three months do not represent any pattern, so far as I can tell. TexasToast is all sorts of upset about how it's getting worse in Iraq and we're talking about other things. Well, TT, start your own blog and make the argument that Iraq has been deteriorating from what it was during Saddam, post-Saddam and now. Until then, kindly QYB.

TNR creating a story is the story because people like TT buy into it without qualification. That's why the media has become a story unto itself.

[Cecil Turner]

"Or are you going to acknowledge that things in Iraq are not going well?"

Not going well compared to what? Spending a decade or more without capturing the enemy capital (a la Vietnam)? Taking hundreds of thousands of casualties (a la WWII)? What did you expect anyway, a cakewalk?

By any rational standard, Iraq was, and continues to be, a remarkably bloodless operation. And any foreseeable scenario that leads to a US defeat depends on a failure of US will.

And frankly the "it's not going well," "we seem to be losing," and "ceding vast territories" mantras are getting a bit tiresome. Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw had essentially identical lines, and aren't remembered fondly.

[Brian]

Cecil,

The analogy to WW II is false since that was an operation on a far grander scale. It doesn't take a PhD in history to realize that.

I'm not really sure how anyone can say it's going pretty well. The casualities continue to mount, the attacks are getting worse, and there are thirty-six territories where we don't control. Hell, the military is warning the green zones might not be safe.

[TexasToast]

Excuse me Birkel, but if you read my post, you might note that most of it addresses directly the TNR piece and Fox’s use of the doctored and undoctored photos. The last paragraph made the point that the Iraq situation seemed a bit more important than whether or not some kid at TNR didn’t look hard enough for Fox transcripts. Its obvious to me that many on the right will try to connect Kerry with Fonda by any means possible – even discussing fake photos. As an advertising friend of mine said, any publicity is good publicity in a situation like this.

It’s rather obvious that a lot of folks on the right are not addressing the Iraq issue (as Tom has not) because the news isn’t good. That’s why the thread took off (with even Instapundit participating) in the direction it did – not because I hijacked it.

That said, all the defenses linked to and cited in this thread address the military situation only. No one disputes that we can win a heads up military confrontation. No one disputes that we won't do anything big until after the election. Our failures are not military failures, so the StrategyPage type defense seems beside the point. Our failures are _political failures_. Drezner (that pinko commie) has an interesting link to a Council on Foreign Relations article on the subject. You might find it interesting – but probably not. It doesn’t seem to fit your biases.

[Cecil Turner]

"Hell, the military is warning the green zones might not be safe."

In the midst of a war, the middle of an occupied capital isn't safe? Wow, that's telling.

And sorry, but the endless empty assertions of imminent defeat are getting tiresome. Cheers.

[Brian]

"In the midst of a war, the middle of an occupied capital isn't safe? Wow, that's telling."

I never said that it was supposed to be Belle Terre or the middle of Nebraska, all safe and serene. But it makes for a great strawman, so congratulations, Cecil.

"And sorry, but the endless empty assertions of imminent defeat are getting tiresome."

Actually, I never said that. What I did say was that it looked like we are losing, not that we have lost. Others think we have lost, but I disagree. I just think it's bad and not getting any better, overall - and I'm not alone.

[Cecil Turner]

"Actually, I never said that. What I did say was that it looked like we are losing, not that we have lost. Others think we have lost, but I disagree."

All very nuanced. And while you (and the DNC) may believe repeated doomsaying will make voters flock to your candidate, I think it's yet another indication of a party that's increasingly desperate and politically tone-deaf. We'll see how it works out for you.

[abb1]

Re: things getting better in Iraq!

Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading members of President Bush's Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.

In appearances on news talk shows, Republican senators also urged Bush to be more open with the American public after the disclosure of a classified CIA (news - web sites) report that gave a gloomy outlook for Iraq and raised the possibility of civil war.

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face the Nation." []
[...]
McCain said Bush had been "perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd like to see."

"I think the president is being clear. I would like to see him more clear," McCain said [LOL]. He said Congress was expected to hold hearings on Iraq soon

Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), an Indiana Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also criticized the administration's handling of Iraq's reconstruction.

Only $1 billion of $18.4 billion allocated by Congress for the task has been spent, Lugar said. "This is the incompetence in the administration," he said on ABC's "This Week."
...

Lol. This is in the middle of the re-election campaign. Do the Republicans really want this guy to get another term? Yeah, things sure are getting better...

[drh]

   "Why don't you just read what he wrote."

Okay, let's see . . . He makes the same conflations about war and criminal justice you do, hails bin Laden as a "symbol," ignores military-style attacks against American interests, assumes all violence is "provoked" by American responses, and denies an Osama-Afghanistan connection (at least to the point bombing would be justified). I'm a bit surprised you find such drivel convincing

cecil, chomsky might not be your favorite, but he hardly *hails* bin Laden as a symbol. in fact, he's citing Jason Burke, who's an english journalist and wrote a book on al-qaeda, on strategies to avoid martyrs. i haven't read his book, but you could check it out yourself: Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror.

btw, i didn't recommend the chomsky article and i'm the first to admit he's not your middle of the road type :-), but if you're interested in looking at data on what's happening, you can check out the Iraqi Index.

[Chick Little]

Dec. 26, 1944
Dear Mom,

We're losing the war!! FDR says we are winning, but the Krauts just suprise-attacked us at this little bulge in Belgium. Allied forces retreating! Germans advancing! Why didn't FDR plan for this? How can we be winning if Jerry can do this? How?

Love, Chick.

[Les Nessman]

From Captain's Quarters:
"In a move that should shock both American and Australian voters, John Kerry's campaign has sent Kerry's sister Diana down under to tell Australians that their American alliance makes them less safe:

John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.
Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

So much for "building alliances"! Kerry has now acted to undermine a critical relationship in the war on terror just to score some electoral points."

I repeat what I said upthread :
'I would ask that the anti-Bush crowd be mindful that what they say does not go overboard and hurt our troops or aid our enemies.'

Shame on Democrats who remain silent on this.

[Cecil Turner]

"in fact, he's citing Jason Burke,"

Whatever. Chomsky doesn't just quote him as a source, he cites his position as true: "As Burke reviews, Clinton's 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan created bin Laden as a symbol . . ."

And maybe it's just me, but if I were looking for insight on Iraq, I wouldn't be rushing to survey linguists and journalists. My first choice would probably be military professionals like the two majors cited above. My second would be military historians, like VDHanson, who could be expected to apply a bit of perspective:

Finally, for all the media-inspired pessimism, progress continues in Iraq. Despite all the killing, a logic of freedom persists, one that is slowly becoming a way of life for millions and that cannot be derailed by media-savvy murderers. Scheduled elections are on track. A culture of personal liberty is sprouting up, from Internet cafes to secular schools. Kurdistan is emerging as a federated republic. Indeed, Kurdish good will is proof that America wants no one's oil, promotes democracy, and is becoming once again a dependable friend. When the United States has chosen to confront the militias, it has won handily. It can do so again in Fallujah and Najaf should the interim government wish a final victory--and our political leadership at last allows the Marines to eradicate terrorist killers who have turned the city of Fallujah into a murderous sewer.

Concur that the Brookings Institute is a better resource, but IMO is still a bit left of reality (and positions like this one display either no support for regime change or a masterful lack of common sense).

[Brian]

"All very nuanced. And while you (and the DNC) may believe repeated doomsaying will make voters flock to your candidate, I think it's yet another indication of a party that's increasingly desperate and politically tone-deaf. We'll see how it works out for you."

I'm not really sure how you can't see the difference between saying that we are losing the war and saying that we have lost the war, but whatever, that's your problem.

I'm not crazy in saying this, either. It's a tough idea to face, but we must face it. And Kerry has the class and leadership to level with us, thankfully.

[Les Nessman]

""In a move that should shock both American and Australian voters, John Kerry's campaign has sent Kerry's sister Diana down under to tell Australians that their American alliance makes them less safe...""

Class and leadership?

[Cecil Turner]

"I'm not really sure how you can't see the difference between saying that we are losing the war and saying that we have lost the war"

The confusion seems to be present only in your mind, as every comment I've made on the subject had some indicator of futurity (e.g., "leads to," "doomsaying," "imminent").

"It's a tough idea to face, but we must face it. And Kerry has the class and leadership to level with us, thankfully."

After hearing McAuliffe this morning, it's obvious that you lot think this is going to help you politically. I think you've gone [further] 'round the bend. Again, we'll see how it works out.

[Brian]

"Class and leadership?"

Perhaps "class" may have been a poor choice. "Decency" would have been better, since that's what I was getting at when I said "class." "Leadership" still applies, since it is the mark of a leader to be honest, among other things, with his constituents.

[Brian]

"The confusion seems to be present only in your mind, as every comment I've made on the subject had some indicator of futurity (e.g., "leads to," "doomsaying," "imminent")."

Then we are in agreement, on a minor point.

I'm sorry that I confused you with someone else, as I apparently did.

"After hearing McAuliffe this morning, it's obvious that you lot think this is going to help you politically. I think you've gone [further] 'round the bend. Again, we'll see how it works out."

I don't pay serious attention to what the party chairs say. Neither should you. The aims of both of them are to go out and politicize everything, with facts and reason taking a backseat to everything else.

[cheap Entropiauniverse ped]

I like to search on Internet to find where to buy cheap Entropiauniverse ped.

[LOTRO Gold]

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!