Powered by TypePad

« The Blackout Continues | Main | Why Can't We All Just Get Along? »

August 18, 2006

Comments

PeterUK

Rick,
Cultural relativism has been the soft underbelly of western news gathering,no one would have used German stringers in WWII,no one would have projected the enemy perspective so diligently,no one would have postured as being unbiased whilst being cheer leaders of the opposition.
Sadly,whilst many of us understand the duplicty of the MSM,the general public do not,this has still to break,in a way the Reuters affair concentrated attention on one picture the political opposition are still in Rathergateland,fake but true.
It is going to be a long haul.

PeterUK

Rocco,
The early meme about immigrants here was,"They are doing jobs that we won't do",more correctly they were brought in to keep wage costs down,it didn't work since most of the industries were outsourced to the country that produced the raw materials,or they went out of business with the collapse of the "Buggy Whip" market.Lastly immigrants with families or of the second generation would no longer work for low wages,thus more cheap labour had to be sourced.

Rick Ballard

"It is going to be a long haul."

No doubt about it. But the direction is correct and there is no one with even half the stature of Comrade Uncle Walty to repair the damage. It's one of the true blessings of the fall of the USSR that propaganda has lost its most able practitioners. The current crew in the MSM are pale imitations of the people whom they replaced.

lurker

Thanks, Other Tom for your predictions what will happen to the NSA program.

"--Quick, without looking: does Rumsfield deserve to be canned?"

Already quick and not having to look, the answer is NOPE, too!

I hate fire ants. They are prevalent in the south.

As for inviting illegals, etc., always excuses, excuses, excuses, blah, blah. Still the same ole, same ole.

Sue

I personally think Rumsfeld should resign. And I like the man. I can't imagine what someone who has BDS thinks about him.

Rocco

Yeah...a vicious cycle it seems. I just can't figure out why everyone excluding a small group of Republicans are afraid to call illegals...well, illegal? Is it because they're afraid of being labled racist by the media?

A few weeks back I heard that every National Union President wrote to every state legislator in Mass, supporting illegal immigration. It just blows my mind that union leadership would favor the hiring of illegals. A union brick layer for example working for a union wage is losing work to illegals at half that wage and their leadership condones it? What a crazy backwards world we now live in?

PeterUK

Rick,
The MSM are wittingly or unwittingly,merely conduits of the raw product that is pumped out by terrorist organisations,all that is required is a morally challenged editor who will snatch like a jackdaw at the most shiney bits of news,or a photographer scenting a Pulitzer.Hey Presto!They don't have to be fellow travellers any more,simply good amoral capitalists with a nose for a buck.
Lenin said "You will sell us the rope with which we will hang you",now they are giving us the rope so we can hang ourselves.

lurker

The BDSers absolutely hate Rumsfeld. I think he's done a good job considering the limitations given to him.

Has anyone checked Flopping Aces lately? Here's the link on a report that MSM is failing to report:

Good News from Iraq

Wow! Almost 100 terrorists killed with 501 captured and arrested.

Wow! While security operations aimed at ending violence are still ongoing, Iraqi and coalition leaders have set the stage for permanent changes in Iraq’s capital city by planning civil operations that will coincide with security operations.

Wow! In other news, more than 950 new Iraqi recruits will begin a 10-week basic police officer training course Aug. 21. The new recruits are the result of one of Multinational Force West’s most successful recruiting efforts this year, officials said.

The original source is at this site.

Hard to challenge the actual numbers.

Wow! Things are certainly improving!

And there's a letter from the military that's going around this week challenging MSM regarding the POSITIVE Iraq reconstruction progress.

lurker

Hey! I like this title at the original site:

"Iraqi Forces Continue to Build on Successes"

clarice

PUK--The LAT! has an article on this today, indicating the problem is the vost-cutting measures imposed on the papers. Editor & Publisher! ran a story by a journo professor saying all the problems with the photos from Lebanon indicate the photojournalism profession is dying though he doesn't know if it is because it was murdered or committed suicide.

I think that's not such a bad thing. Issues are too important to be decided by the readers' emotive responses alone and photos are simply too emotive. People will just have to learn to read or be apolitical.(A new kind of literacy test for voters).

clarice

The NYT has an editorial today contending whistleblowers need more legal protection. What a concidence! Macsmind says the grand jury into the leaks is continuing and heating up.

Rocco

From "A comprehensive overview of the four types of photo fraud committed by Reuters, August, 2006."

Theory A: The Reuters editorial staff is sympathetic to the aims of Hezbollah, and is using propagandistic images exaggerating Israeli violence to increase world pressure on Israel to stop its attacks, thereby giving Hezbollah a chance to regroup, and claim moral superiority.

Theory B: The stringers employed by Reuters are sympathetic to Hezbollah, and successfully duped the politically neutral Reuters editors into publishing propaganda.

Theory C: The stringers employed by Reuters simply wanted to make a name for themselves, and resorted to fraud to obtain the most spectacular images, regardless of their political outlook.

Theory D: Reuters photographers and editors are intimidated by Hezbollah, and publish Hezbollah's propaganda out of fear for their lives.

Theory E: Reuters photographers and editors publish Hezbollah's propaganda to insure continued access to still more Hezbollah propaganda.

Theory F: Reuters and other news agencies always support the underdog in any conflict.

kate

The media is a disgrace. This morning there are filler stories on Haditha, clearly aimed at keeping the story in the news and driving the story towards the massacre the media want so badly. The media is so impatient.

Meanwhile, a real scandal regarding United Nations peacekeepers and child abuse goes totally underreported.

Bob

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/burtis081906.htm>A judge’s ruling as evidence of collapse

Boy the first sentence is all you need to read!

"Somewhere in Detroit a dimwitted federal judge appointed by the late, lamentable and toothy Jimmy Carter, who made militant Islam what it is today by his feckless and toothless response to the capture of our hostages in Tehran back in 1979, ruled that the highly successful NSA program is unconstitutional."

But there's more...

"And for the ACLU, for all the Carter and Clinton judicial appointees, for the cut and run Democrats, for the anti-war crowd, for Honest John Murtha and John Kerry, for Ned Lament and his relatives in the VVAW, for Hezbollah, for al-Qaeda, for militant Islam anywhere, for Hamas, for Sheikh Nasrallah, for the mullahs, for the vicious hate spewing Imams across the globe, for the Madrassa Schools, for the young suicide bombers, for every new recruit to the ongoing and violent jihad against every one of us in the West — this senseless ruling is a grand victory."

Two sentences covers an awful lot!

Bob

Kate, you would think our troll "samesty Indefensible" would keep us up to speed on the UN and it's impressive record!

kate

Bob, I am confused as to whether stupidity or arrogance mixed with bias is the media's most serious sin.

This morning, MSNBC had a story on the German train terrorist plot. This story truly confuses the media since Germany is not an ally of Bush or a participant in Iraq so you can almost see them scratching their little heads.

The foreign correspondent gave a good description of the plot and then the anchor lady asked: Does Germany have any terorist links.

I nearly died. The reporter politely reminded her of the 9/11 terrorists who were deployed, radicalized and trained in Germany.

Bob

Kate, I think it's purely "BDS" Bush Derangement Syndrome at it's best. The media will contradict any and everything Bush says. They know us neocons will save their sorry asses once again, so why not take cheap shots... since there's no downside for them.

However deep down (at least I hope) they agree with his tactics. But every once in while, they let their guard down... and tell the truth.

PeterUK

Clarice,
The modern media is like Leggo,stories are constructed from ready made building blocks,the rise of Impact Journalisation,the Oprahisation of life into the overdramatic,all the world is a soap,has lead us inexorably to where we are now.
The real is often quite mundane,war can be long periods of absolute boredom interspersed with interludes of unbelievable madness and chaos,battles are spread over vast distances.The job the MSM has arrogated to itself is the compression of events so that life immitates art,the boredom is edited out only the dram remains.Hence all disasters are news and successes mundane.All of life is a stage,what we get to see is what fits under the proscenium arch.

Other Tom

Incredible as it may seem, today's New York Times editorial on whistleblowers makes absolutely no mention of the federal Intelligence Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1998. That act provides for specific steps to be taken by any member of the intelligence committee who suspects wrongdoing. Those steps include reporting to specified members of the appropriate Congressional committees. Unfortunately for the Times, they do not include leaking to the press. But it appears that the Times has never heard of that legislation.

PeterUK

Mr Ballard,Surely Ladbrokes are giving odds for the events of 22nd August?

Other Tom

Instapundit has a link to a New York Times article that is highly critical of the loony district judge's NSA ruling. Here's an excerpt I particularly enjoyed:

"'It’s hard to exaggerate how bad it is,' said John R. Schmidt, a Justice Department official in the Clinton [sic] administration who says the program is legal. He pointed to Judge Taylor’s failure to cite what he called several pertinent decisions, including one from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002 that said it took for granted that Congress 'could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power' to conduct warrantless surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence."

(The New York Times editorial board, on the other hand, found the opinion "reasoned" and "well grounded." They would appear to be alone.)

Sue

OT,

According to Patterico (I haven't read the editorial myself) the LA Times also found the opinion reasoned and well grounded.

Barney Frank

Quick, without looking: does Rumsfield deserve to be canned?

No. Bush just needs to take him off the leash, before a city gets nuked.

windansea

quick without looking, is Jeff irrelevant?

SunnyDay

Jeff who?

Jane

In a word "yes".

Has anyone been hearing what Newt has been saying about the administration lately? He is pissed about the results of the Hezbollah war and blaming the administration. He's making sense too.

Rick Ballard

"Bush just needs to take him off the leash, before a city gets nuked."

Why? It takes some time and sometimes extraordinary events before a republic will respond in the manner requisite to convince its opponents that their game is not worth the candle.

A chemical/biological/nuclear attack at this point will draw a commensurate response - as the will of the republic. A dispassionate review of the potential for actually preventing such an attack would result in the derivation of a probability approaching zero. A similiarly dispassionate review of the ability of the administration to persuade the electorate that a pre-emptive strike of sufficient force to dissuade the opposition of the error of its thought process would still yield a probability approaching zero.

Persuading the ignorant requires a focus point comprehensible to the minimally gifted. It was, perhaps, possible to have retaliated appropriately on September 12 - had we been prepared to do so. It will require another September 11 in order to do so in the future.

We'll get there - even if it costs us New York in total.

Other Tom

In the event of a serious attack on US soil, the people who sought to "kill" the Patriot Act, and who are hot to get the NSA surveillance program held illegal in the courts, will be the first to blame Bush.

Jeff

Bush just needs to take him off the leash

An aptly chosen metaphor.

a pre-emptive strike of sufficient force to dissuade the opposition of the error of its thought process

The probability of such a thing is less than zero. That is, not only would such a preemptive strike not dissuade the opposition of the error of its thought process, it would on the contrary provide all sorts of encouragement to the opposition. In other words, it's an insane suggestion.

Rick Ballard

"In other words, it's an insane suggestion."

Which will become the definition of sanity if a terrorist strike involving CBN occurs. The problematic events will be a series of of events similiar to the DC sniper attacks or the inability of the electorate to comprehend the immediate significance of a 'B' attack involving anthrax.

Stick with kumbyah, Jeff. It's brought your side success in the past and only reality prevents one from thinking that it will be successful in the future.

I'm going to buy shares in Qum & Pyongang Obsidian Mines, Inc. as soon as they are available. Maybe next week.

clarice

PUK--and they recycle already proven false stories. Today the Wa Po leads with yet another Haditha story (can Abu Ghraib be far behind?) . This one expresses astonishment that the commanding officer never reported the house deaths because hw considered them an unremarkable occurrence in assymetrical war. And the reporter is breathless. I think his only experience with war is his mommy's telling him not to play with guns, even water pistols.
The other day the NYT ran one on Haditha which was a masterpiece of innuendo sans fact.

I think today's NYT editorial naturally ignored the terms of the Whistleblower Law because it is no more than a ploy to build up sympathy for them and those who leaked to them who are about to get their just rewards. And I think it unremarkable that the NYT piece on the NSA decision failed to note its own contrary editorial. The editorial pp of the paper have obviously been contracted out to the three stooges.

PeterUK

Clarice,
"I think his only experience with war is his mommy's telling him not to play with guns, even water pistols."

Yes but she let him borrow the twin set and pearls.

PeterUK

Jeff,
"In other words, it's an insane suggestion."
How could you tell?

PeterUK

Rick,
You are dealing with the Dodo generation,they don't believe they have an enemy,predator,it is all a plot got up by Bushhitlerburtoncheneyfeldmilitaryindustrialcomplexoil baronsgreatsataninc,to rule the world.Ignoring the fact that a simple plan would have been to have an Anschluss with Canada.

Jeff

Stick with kumbyah

No wonder you came up with such a thoughtless suggestion - you think our only two alternatives are yours and kumbayah.

And pray tell, what is a pre-emptive strike of sufficient force to dissuade the opposition of the error of its thought process. Let's unpack it. 1. Who is the opposition? 2. Who is the target of your pre-emptive strike? 3. What is sufficient force here? 4. How, exactly, does the strike dissuade the opposition etc.?

I take it, though, that you think the Bush administration's policies thus far have been a failure. I agree.

Cecil Turner

The probability of such a thing is less than zero.

A nice illustration of the futility of discussing actual issues with the non-rational.

From the Haditha article:

[Col] Ewers asked: "Did it occur to you that you needed to do an investigation simply so you could go to the locals and say, 'This was righteous'? . . . And be confident that you were speaking with certainty?"
I expect the reporter to be clueless . . . but a Colonel? (Even if he isn't qualified for the command he was criticizing.) I suspect the BN C.O. was a bit nonplussed to hear that coming from a senior officer, or he'd likely have come up with a better response (e.g., "I run a combat unit, counselor--if you want an investigation for a PR effort, take it up with Division Public Affairs").

clarice

Wasn't that an astonishing bit, Cecil?

I know what happened even if the reporter doesn't. Human Rights Watch and Time took Baathist propaganda and ran with it and the rest of the lamestream hopped on board. Note, too, this reporter fudges for Murtha suggesting what we know to be false is true--that Murtha's charges were based on a military briefing. (Of course, even had it been, it would only have been the most preliminary info--that is, what the HRW and Baathists had charged.)
PHEH PHEH PHEH

PeterUK

"1. Who is the opposition? 2. Who is the target of your pre-emptive strike? 3. What is sufficient force here? 4. How, exactly, does the strike dissuade the opposition etc.?"

Please will commenters please remember Jeff cannot read between the lins.

Rick Ballard

1. Who is the opposition?

The mullahs and imams deriving income from the sustenance of the delusion of the 'Iranian Revolution".

2. Who is the target of your pre-emptive strike?

I'd pick Qum as an excellent locus of those descibed above. Reducing Qum would have the effect of reducing the power of every preacher of jihadi jibberjabber trained there (vide inshallah).

3. What is sufficient force here?

That necessary to attenuate the process known as "life" for the ayatollahs, mullahs and imams involved. (Recognizing, of course, that the aforementioned will seek cover among mothers carrying new born babes in their arms.) We're speaking of consumate cowards in the instant and acknowledgement of their cowardice should precede their extinction.

4. How, exactly, does the strike dissuade the opposition etc.?

Eliminating the ayatollahs, mullahs and imams will provide direction to the masses concerning allah's judgement of their teaching. Nothing happens except by the will of allah and the destruction of ayatollahs, imams and mullahs will provide proof of their heresy.

Inshallah.

kate

Re Haditha-my fear is that the PC Marine Corps brass will be too fearful of the MSM not to bring charges. The media got way too excited in May after Murtha made his initial charges.

The media wants a massacre story because it's convinced it will bring Bush's numbers down even further and help the Democrats win the Congress back.

They are getting impatient since they expected charges by now. Plus, since Time was involved they can make it the media exposing the evil military like in the good old days in Vietnam. I have noticed that Time Magazine is far less certain of its massacre lead.

I think this is a case at worse of overuse of force, not the storyline the media wanted.

Other Tom

There has long been a school of thought which holds that it is futile to fight back, because that would only make the enemy angrier. I believe Jimmy Carter is one of the principal apostles of this faith, and through that faith he made himself the midwife, if not the father, of modern Islamic jihadism.

For those who are slow to accept reality, it is probably useless to point out that this is a fight to the death, and the West will either win it or lose it. The one thing that is beyond its power is to avoid it, and unfortunately a policy of avoidance holds a very strong appeal for the modern American Left and most of Europe. This war can either be fought now, or it can be fought after the madmen have nuclear weapons. Those are the two alternatives. Period.

PeterUK

Other Tom,
What we have all got to realise is that,we are embroiled in a struggle with an opponent who thinks the next best outcome to winning is losing.There can be no coming second for us in this conflict.

clarice

kate, I think they are dragging out the proceedings because there is insufficient evidence to charge any of the Kelo company guys and don't want to create a stir in Iraq.

I think those who did the preliminsary investigation and leaked details are the ones who deserve to be court martialed.

Kate

clarice-I agree. Read that the criminal investigation might recommend, get this, more investigation. Doesn't sound like a strong case to me. But the media monster must be fed.

I agree, the mystery is who are the leakers. Who are they, what is the agenda. Why are they leaking, how many of them are there? Why are they so eager for charges in this case.

Jeff

A nice illustration of the futility of discussing actual issues with the non-rational.

Just because my joke fell flat with you?

Please will commenters please remember Jeff cannot read between the lins.

So PeterUK you were thinking exactly what Rick Ballard came out with, because you'd read between the lines?

Rick Ballard

So your strategy is to bomb Qum and this is somehow going to convince all the probolematic ayatollahs and imams out there who are not hit to change their ways, or at least reduce their power (which seems to be kind of moving the goal posts a lot closer than your initial claim, frankly). And then the masses will have their minds changed because they'll interpret it as g-d's direction to turn in another direction? That can't be a serious suggestion, can it? Or put it this way: you should have a job in the Bush administration!

And what of the really problematic clergy in Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Afghanistan? all trained at Qum? And what of al-Qaeda? Are bin Laden and Zawahiri - or their followers - going to be so impressed by the attack on Qum that they will change their outlook? Or are they not even part of the opposition anymore, as per your 1.?

Wow, I thought you were going to offer a somewhat more serious strategy than that. Like I said, Bush administration here you come!

Barney Frank

Rick,
Unfortunately I agree with you that it will probably require another large strike on us or Israel before the nature of the conflict we are in sinks into the masses.
But that probablilty does not relieve Bush and co. of doing more to attempt to prevent such a catastrophe or at least prepare militarily for one. This administration is singularly incompetent at communicating effectively with the public.
Regardless of whether we can prevent a CBN attack, we are not enlarging our military sufficiently for the conflict that will follow such a strike. I barely see the preliminaries of such preparation.

An aptly chosen metaphor.

Yes it was. Only the left cannot appreciate the value of a guard dog as Secretary of Defense.

SunnyDay

Indeed, their idea of defense is a strongly worded letter.

PeterUK

Jeff
"So PeterUK you were thinking exactly what Rick Ballard came out with, because you'd read between the lines?"
You see there you go again,because one understands what someone else is implying doesn't mean that that one is thinking of the same thing as a course of action.Communicating by implication and inference is one of the subtle arts the human race has.

Sue

Jeff,

You accuse others of mind reading when you have a crystal ball? Because obviously you assume Bush is about to strike Iran. Sy Hersh-like crystal ball? ::grin::

Barney Frank

Jeff or should I say Neville?

There is very likely a large war on the horizon. The longer we dither the larger it looms as the west is not preparing and Islam is. When and if it comes, it is quite possible that not only Qom but Teheran, Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Tel Aviv, and who knows where else will be leveled. These people are dead serious and all the diplomacy in the world is not going to placate them. The will to stop them now does not exist, largely because of the magical thinking of people like you, so we are very likely going to face a catastrophic war eventually. The best hope we have is that they will grow over confident and strike before they are fully prepared, which will limit the scope somewhat. There is not 100% certainty that this will occur of course but neither was there 100% certainty of Stalingrad and Iwo Jima in 1938. But with enough denial anything is possible.

PeterUK

For those who don't believe that we are under attack or those who see the world through the prism of American domestic politics/

PeterUK

Sunnt Day,
There idea is a letter of a apology.

Jeff

What makes you think I have a crystal ball, Sue? I do wonder and worry, though, that Bush, who loves the game changing move, is going to roll out the electoral marketing campaign for an attack on Iran the day after Labor Day. What do you think?

Speaking of Sy Hersh, do you think Rumsfield is off the hawkish bandwagon on Iran, out of concern for our troops in Iraq? I don't buy it.

Barney Frank

There is not 100% certainty that this will occur of course

Should have read "there is not 100% certainty that any of this will occur.

Sue

I'm going to disagree with the defense argument. The left is all for defense. They are opposed to offense. If we are struck again, they will be up in arms, as they were in the days after 9/11. What they can't and won't do is prepare an offense.

sammy small

Rick Ballard,

I totally agree with the target list. If the CIA hasn't yet begun to plant sleepers into each and every mosque from Lebanon to Pakistan, then the eternal spring of the opposition will never be stopped.

Just imagine, on a selected Friday service, every mosque's mullahs, imams, radical leaders are taken down with extreme prejudice. Too bad we can't do it on August 22nd.

Sue

What makes you think I have a crystal ball, Sue?

This...

I do wonder and worry, though, that Bush, who loves the game changing move, is going to roll out the electoral marketing campaign for an attack on Iran the day after Labor Day.

What do you think?

Unfortunately, I don't have your crystal ball.

Rick Ballard

Jeff (if that's your real name),

All that has occurred to date is an exchange of symbols. The WTC was chosen as a symbol and the deposition of Hussein was chosen as a symbol. I'm sure that you have heard of a game known in the west as "chess". It's very popular in the Middle East, or so I've heard.

The proper exchange for any western city is Qum. The "end" of the game will be the destruction of Mecca. islam has very little meaning if Mecca is off the board. The problematic clergy of whom you speak have a rote card which still has a value system based upon a visit to Mecca rated above pursuit of jihad - it's kind of a "first pillar" where jihad doesn't even make the pillar list.

The rest is an exchange of pawns but the depth of ignorance of the "average man" on either side is such that it cannot be described in that manner.

Qum is either the queen or a bishop and as such is a very worthy target. As much as I might like to see Mecca vanish in a flash of blind light followed by a declaration of shakhmat, I believe that Qum is more appropriate at the moment.

Sue

I should have added I also avoid Sy Hersh conspiracy theories. They sound too much like Larry Johnson conspiracy theories. And that is to laugh at.

Jeff

Jeff or should I say Neville?

If that is entirely a joke, fine. If not, go fuck yourself. Seriously. And i will add that one of the reasons to vociferously oppose the war in Iraq was that it was going to be - as it has been - a gigantic disaster with regard to effectively combatting the very real set of dangers we face from our enemies. We are much less safe as a result of this disastrous war, with regard to al Qaeda and its affiliates, with regard to Iran, and on down the line. One of my fears is that nothing can be done that needs to be done as long as this administration is in office, and that is still for a long time.

SunnyDay

PUK, you're right. I typed without thinking. ;)

SunnyDay

Ut oh here come the talking points. I dunno about y'all, but I already heard them.

Jeff

Sue - I'm really surprised that you think thinking about the future, and worrying about a particular possibility, is equivalent to having a crystal ball or claiming to. I would have thought you realized that that metaphor is used to actually know the future.

Rick - Good luck.

PeterUK

"I do wonder and worry, though, that Bush, who loves the game changing move, is going to roll out the electoral marketing campaign for an attack on Iran the day after Labor Day. What do you think?"

I think that this is a statement by someone is too blinkered to see outside American domestic politics,someone who is positively slavering to return his party to power.But tell us Jeff,what are you going to do with the Islamist assault on the infidel world when it is yours to play with.When you have to stop posturing and deal with the realities as they are,when there is no one else to blame.With Bush gone you emotional crutches will have gone also,you will have to stand alone.

Sue

One of my fears is that nothing can be done that needs to be done as long as this administration is in office, and that is still for a long time.

What needs to be done?

sammy small

Sue,

Dont you know.....Change!

PeterUK

"We are much less safe as a result of this disastrous war, with regard to al Qaeda and its affiliates, with regard to Iran,"

Jeff,in what way are you less safe than when Iran's Foreign Legion Hezbollah was blowing up the Marine Barracks in Beirut,or when al Qaeda was crippling the Cole,or when the Twin Towers were struck,or the myriad attacks and bombings round the globe were taking place.
What crime against Islam has Germany commited to have bombs left on its trains?
And what is your master plan for ensuring peace and security,and please a practical solution not "The World will turn into utopia once the Democrats return to power".

Cecil Turner

Just because my joke fell flat with you?

Negative probabilities are indeed a joke (or oxymoronic, if you prefer). In that vein, they're remarkably similar to "Democrat strategy."

Wow, I thought you were going to offer a somewhat more serious strategy than that.

Heh. Now that bit was funny.

. . . do you think Rumsfield is off the hawkish bandwagon on Iran, out of concern for our troops in Iraq?

Are you suggesting Iran would attack our troops in Iraq?

One of my fears is that nothing can be done that needs to be done as long as this administration is in office, and that is still for a long time.

It appears to me the only thing you think "needs to be done" is to get this administration out of office, so your argument is perfectly circular. I do think it'd be really nice if all the yammering malcontents could proffer something that could possibly be mistaken for an actual counterproposal so we could discuss it. So far, the closest thing appears to be Murtha's "redeploy to Okinawa" plan. Good luck with that one.

Jane

>I do wonder and worry, though, that Bush, who loves the game changing move, is going to roll out the electoral marketing campaign for an attack on Iran the day after Labor Day. What do you think?

Of course you wonder, because it's all about politics for people like you. You don't understand resolve or policy or anything else. If the republicans win it's because diebold fixed the machines, right? And if we attack Iran it couldn't possibly be necessary. If we had just given them the green light for nukes, everything would be A-OK!

You don't get it, and you never will. There is no war on terror, just one big bad republican plot. There were no WMD, just that brilliant, but evil Karl Rove making things up to screw up your welfare state.

You say we are at greater risk, but don't realize that it is your kind of bullshit that heightens that risk. You moan about the loss of civil rights when you would happily give them to the terrorists.

So tell us, as so many have asked, what is your brilliant plan to make the world safe for democracy. I'm dying to hear it.

Sue

Sue - I'm really surprised that you think thinking about the future, and worrying about a particular possibility, is equivalent to having a crystal ball or claiming to. I would have thought you realized that that metaphor is used to actually know the future.

Actually Jeff, I do wonder and worry. But I don't assign political motives to every damn thing that happens. I don't believe the British moved their arrest forward to divert attention from Sy Hersh's devasting article. I don't believe Clinton bombed Iraq to divert attention away from Lewinsky. I don't believe there was more than one shooter in Dallas. I like conspiracy theories as well as the next person but I try to reign myself in when I see black helicopters.

SunnyDay

Will Lebanese Army fight IDF?

Looks like things are taking a bad turn here. Lebanon seems to want Israel to allow Hez to re-arm.

Sue

The U.N. and Lebanon's government have said Hezbollah will not be allowed to bring weapons out in public, but have declined to commit to trying to disarm the guerrillas, as called for in a September 2004 U.N. resolution.

I know how to fix this...let's have another resolution!!!!

Sue

So, if Israel is found guilty of violating the cease fire agreement, I don't remember the resolution number at the moment, gazillion seven hundred and something, what exactly will the UN do to Israel? Another resolution?

PeterUK

"The U.N. and Lebanon's government have said Hezbollah will not be allowed to bring weapons out in public,"
Hey,just like the mafia.
What is called for here is a man,a magic hat and a Swift Boat up the Litani.

Jeff

Let's see, just to begin with, Iraq: make a very loud and very clear agreement/promise/threat with the Iraqi government for full U.S. withdrawal in the next couple of years, requiring certain level of forces in the Iraqi army and police, purging the government and parties of the really nasty militia members, and a couple of other things. In this way, make clear to the Iraqis that we're leaving and if they don't get their act together, there really will be something much worse than our resented presence, namely full-blown civil war. On the assumption that they worry more about that than about our presence, this should be some nice incentivizing. There are some other things we should be doing there, but that's probably the central thing. Then, among other things, we actually have armed forces that are a more effective threat with regard to other regimes (cf. Abizaid and Pace's testimony beginning of August).

Beyond that, I would devote a lot of resources and attention to actually getting bin Laden and Zawahiri, not letting them get away this time through utter bad judgment.

So that's a start. Y'all accuse me of not having anything to say about strategy. What is the Bush administration's strategy on Iran, exactly? What is our Iran policy? Do we even have one?

Sue

And I ask again...what happens if Hezbollah is seen with weapons out in public? Who is going to stop them? The UN? The Lebanese army? I know, police officers, right? Or how about another resolution!!!!

Jeff

There were no WMD, just that brilliant, but evil Karl Rove making things up to screw up your welfare state.

I don't think Rove made any of the stuff up about WMD. But phasing out Social Security was his, all his, no doubt.

SunnyDay

Seems to me, Lebanon never implemented the ceasefire, technically. Who is in violation? Sheesh. How do they get away with this crap and no one says anything? The agreement was that Lebanon army would disarm Hez, then they decided not to, after the fact. So, Israel goes along with hez just keeps their weapons out of sight? And no smuggling in more arms.

This agreement is only binding on Israel, it seems. Everyone else is doing whatever they please.

From what I understand, we are giving the Lebanese government a chance to stand up, and they are not willing to do it.

What a sad situation. I'm old enough to remember what Lebanon used to be.

Sue

Jeff,

If you were a bad guy and you knew on November 15, 2007 the US military would be gone, what would you do?

Threat to other regimes? Would that entail pre-emptive measures or just having them ready in the event we are attacked?

I agree getting bin Laden and Zawahari would be sweet, but I don't see how that will stop terrorism.

You don't have a strategy. You are repeating democratic talking points.

Sue

I don't think Rove made any of the stuff up about WMD. But phasing out Social Security was his, all his, no doubt.

Then you know little of Bush. That plan wasn't hatched in Washington. Bush was making noises about SS reform while governor of Texas.

Sue

Bush's plan for Iran is working through the UN. We see how well that has been going.

Cecil Turner

Beyond that, I would devote a lot of resources and attention to actually getting bin Laden and Zawahiri, not letting them get away this time through utter bad judgment.

Are you suggesting we invade Pakistan (pop 165 million)? And do you really think "incentivizing" the Iraqis is the problem? (I mean, don't you think having bombs going off in their markets provides just a bit of incentive?)

What is our Iran policy? Do we even have one?

Well, assuming we don't invade Pakistan, we probably have plenty of armed forces to put pressure on Iran (pop 69 mil). I think the stated policy is containment with a proviso that them developing nukes is unacceptable. (And an undercurrent of regime destabilization.) Works for me.

PeterUK

"Let's see, just to begin with, Iraq: make a very loud and very clear agreement/promise/threat with the Iraqi government for full U.S. withdrawal in the next couple of years,"

Done that

"requiring certain level of forces in the Iraqi army and police,"

Doing that


"purging the government and parties of the really nasty militia members, and a couple of other things."

Trying this,but easier said than done.

"In this way, make clear to the Iraqis that we're leaving and if they don't get their act together, there really will be something much worse than our resented presence, namely full-blown civil war. On the assumption that they worry more about that than about our presence, this should be some nice incentivizing."

They have been told this


"There are some other things we should be doing there, but that's probably the central thing. Then, among other things, we actually have armed forces that are a more effective threat with regard to other regimes (cf. Abizaid and Pace's testimony beginning of August)."

Explain and expand,which regimes.

"Beyond that, I would devote a lot of resources and attention to actually getting bin Laden and Zawahiri, not letting them get away this time through utter bad judgment".


This you simply do not know,unfortunately the world is a big place full of places you cannot go

"So that's a start. Y'all accuse me of not having anything to say about strategy. What is the Bush administration's strategy on Iran, exactly? What is our Iran policy? Do we even have one?"

The policy on Iran,I thought you would never get there,the dinosaur in the closet.The principle policy is to deny Irsan nuclear weapons,being a socially aware and co-operative adminstration,Bush has been very inclusive with Europe and other allies,unfortunately Iran has categorically turned down overtures from the rest of the world and is pursuing its nuclear policy.Further it is fomenting conflict in Iraq,Palestine and Lebanon,as with Iranian nuclear policy,the left screams like a short changed hooker if the option of violence is discussed.
I take it since you avoided the real problem,Iran,you have no idea what to do.
Time is running out,the carrot has been tried and eaten,the stick is another option,other than that,it will be a case of how I learned to love the Iranian bomb

Are you sure you are Jeff,you seem to have gone all AB?Katrina folksy on us?

Jane

Let's see, just to begin with, Iraq: make a very loud and very clear agreement/promise/threat with the Iraqi government for full U.S. withdrawal in the next couple of years, requiring certain level of forces in the Iraqi army and police, purging the government and parties of the really nasty militia members, and a couple of other things. In this way, make clear to the Iraqis that we're leaving and if they don't get their act together, there really will be something much worse than our resented presence, namely full-blown civil war.

The loudness of course being for your benefit, right Jeff? So you can hear it and suddenly feel reassured. What other than you not being kept abreast by bullhorn makes you think that isn't going on? The left and its need for handholding is simply amazing. Why not demand that Clinton hold the bullhorn so you know you can believe it, since we know his reputation for the truth.

Beyond that, I would devote a lot of resources and attention to actually getting bin Laden and Zawahiri, not letting them get away this time through utter bad judgment.

Oh you mean like when Clinton gave them away, before 911 when offered on a civil platter, right?

Yeah that will certainly solve everything. I'm sure Hezbollah will give up their arms in Lebanon, and the British terrorists will lose their direction, and the world will be safe against terrorism. Tell me, how exactly should we be doing that?

Got anything else? Iraq is over, bin Laden is dead and you can go on with life as usual. In fact let's enact a few more entitlement programs, repeal the tax cuts, and make certain social security goes bankrupt!

I don't think Rove made any of the stuff up about WMD. But phasing out Social Security was his, all his, no doubt.

Oh so that's what the left is calling the plan to rescue social security from those who would bankrupt it. Much better to saddle your kids and grandkids with that burden - after all by then there will probably another republican you can blame your mess on.

What is the Bush administration's strategy on Iran, exactly? What is our Iran policy? Do we even have one?

Our policy for years has been to destabilize the existing government and encourage the Iranians to take back their home. Funny you are unaware of that.

PeterUK

"eah that will certainly solve everything. I'm sure Hezbollah will give up their arms in Lebanon, and the British terrorists will lose their direction, and the world will be safe against terrorism."
..and the sun will shine,bluebirds will sing,little bunny rabbits will scamper in the meadows and Bambi will be safe and sound...

Thers has got to be a musical in this.

Barney Frank

If that is entirely a joke, fine. If not, go fuck yourself.

That's a tad intemperate is it not? Neville Chamberlain was an honorable man who underestimated a looming threat and inadvertantly helped turn a potentially managable situation into an inevitable global war. That seems rather like the likely denoument of your policy. No need to resort to obscenity.

BTW, I happen to agree that Bush's Iran strategy is inadequate and its execution is worse. Iran is not contained. It is expanding its influence and threat.
However Zawahiri and bin Laden are largely irrelevant. They are tiny pawns in a much larger game. The states that sponsor terrorism are the only things that matter in the end.

Jeff

Sue you're on a roll today.

If you were a bad guy and you knew on November 15, 2007 the US military would be gone, what would you do?

Let me note that the implication of this is that we are going to be in Iraq until we kill or capture basically all the bad guys. My suggestion is that the good, decent and okay enough Iraqis have no incentive to go after the bad guys as long as we are there for them to do it, and less fear that the bad guys will conduct and win a civil war as long as we are there indefinitely than if they know we will be gone.

Threat to other regimes? Would that entail pre-emptive measures or just having them ready in the event we are attacked?

What are "pre-emptive measures"? We of course may carry out a pre-emptive attack, as has always been recognized as a matter of defense. As for preventive war, which the Bush administration would like to call the doctrine of preemption, because they know preventive war is problematic and they don't have the courage of their convictions, I'm skeptical.

Then you know little of Bush. That plan wasn't hatched in Washington. Bush was making noises about SS reform while governor of Texas.

Aside from the fact that Karl Rove hardly began his relationship with Bush when W. arrived in DC as president, I don't doubt Bush had thoughts of eliminating Social Security long ago, all on his own - after all, it's been a major goal of the conservative movement generally for at least a few decades. But I do think the idea that the marquee, opening achievement of Bush's second term was going to be something that hardly figured in the election - the elimination of Social Security - was Rove's.

Sue

Let me note that the implication of this is that we are going to be in Iraq until we kill or capture basically all the bad guys.

Let me note you avoided the question.

What are "pre-emptive measures"? We of course may carry out a pre-emptive attack, as has always been recognized as a matter of defense.

Removing a threat before it has the capability to attack. Preventive war? A new phrase for me. I must have not been paying attention to the talking points lately.

I don't doubt Bush had thoughts of eliminating Social Security long ago

Reform turns into elimination in your world. Even though Bush was ready and willing to listen to other alternatives. The democrats stood and cheered at the end of any debate on reform to save SS. That tape will haunt democrats.

PeterUK

"What are "pre-emptive measures"? We of course may carry out a pre-emptive attack, as has always been recognized as a matter of defense. As for preventive war, which the Bush administration would like to call the doctrine of preemption, because they know preventive war is problematic and they don't have the courage of their convictions, I'm skeptical."

..and confused,a pre-emtive attack is an act of war,it is to be regarded that once an attack on a sovereign power has been made war has been declared.

Sue

But I do think the idea that the marquee, opening achievement of Bush's second term was going to be something that hardly figured in the election

It didn't take a crystal ball to figure out that SS reform was going to be the opening salvo in Bush's 2nd term. He ran on it...

::grin::

Sue

PUK,

You will note that Jeff uses preemptive attack as a matter of "defense". It is not a matter of defense. It is a matter of offense. Something the democrats are not willing to use. Offensive measures.

PeterUK

Sue,
Presumably they have a Pre-emptometer which indicates the precise moment defence turns into offence,it is this window of opportunity which is used to bomb any rogue aspirin factories.
How mant repetitions of "Death to the Great Satan" do there have to be to trigger this device?

MayBee

Part of having courage of your convictions is knowing that you would stand by your actions even if the result isn't what you'd intended.

What if we could go into Pakistan tomorrow (against Pakistan's wishes) and take out Bin Laden and Zawahiri, but it would kill 2,800 American troops. Would it still be worth it?

clarice

Jane, PUK. Rick, I cannot find fault in anything you've said (well maybe Jane could have avoided raising the prospect of Jeff having children and grandchildren).

PeterUK

Clarice,
Our Lefticles don't seem to understand the idea that for any kind of deterrence to work,those who could be the recipients have to believe one will use the weapons which deter.
The left seem to think that such things can be ruled out of bounds and still serve a useful function.It is to be hoped that they exchange the tinfoil for lead,probably to be found in their pants,though not in their pencils.

Jane

(well maybe Jane could have avoided raising the prospect of Jeff having children and grandchildren).

He better have a boatload to support us all in our old age.

Wouldn't it be nice to meet a liberal who actually had an idea or two. This is a difficult time. Too bad half the country is brain dead.

PeterUK

Jane,
It is an utter disgrace that the left,they are in no way liberals in the classic sense,can only naysay and undermine any policy put forward by the administration in these very dangerous times.As you say any sane policy advanced in good faith would get a far hearing,but in reality all the left want is power.There isn't even a realisation that no matter how vituous and morally righteous the left may be,they are still infidels and as such targets,in the final analysis,we all either prevail,submit or die.

clarice

***Tehran, 16 August (AKI) - Hundreds of police in Tehran have begun dismantling satellite antenna dishes from the city's rooftops - part of a campaign to prevent Iranians from watching Western television programmes. The move follows a recent police order that all satellite dishes - officially banned but tolerated until now - be removed. The campaign against satellite television was launched by the Minister for Culture and Islamic Orientation, Hassan Saffar Harandi, who said "we have to halt the West's cultural offensive," on Iran.

Some observers believe that the clampdown is aimed at keeping the government's control over news regarding Iran's dispute with the international community regarding its nuclear programme.

The government on Tuesday reiterated its intention to respond to a package of incentives, devised by the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, to persuade Tehran to drop its uranium enrichment plans.

In recent months, all news coverage on the issue in Iran has had to be done with the approval of the Supreme Council of National Security, prompting people who wish to be informed by non-government sources to watch and listen to television and radio programmes broadcast from abroad.
*********
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1686620/posts

PeterUK

Clarice,
Tuesday is an interesting day,

" In a keynote speech on Wednesday to senior clerics, Ahmadinejad spoke of his strong belief in the second coming of Shi’ite Muslims’ “hidden” 12th Imam.

According to Shi’ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi’ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.

“Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

“Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society.”

“Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi’s return. We should avoid copying the West’s policies and systems,” he added, newspapers and local news agencies reported.

Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.

A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed. (Reuters, Nov. 17, 2005)"

clarice

Maybe we'll get lucky and the 13th Imam will blow Ahamadjaihadi's brains out in the public square.

In the meantime, Brits seem to have had it with multiculturalism --

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401419&in_page_id=1770

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame