Is this article an example of liberal media bias?

[Divinus Arma]

I want to hear your honest opinion of whether or not you think this article displays liberal bias. Please keep in mind that this is presented as news, not an editorial.


Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
Oct 13 11:14 PM US/Eastern

By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit _ the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering _ how often do we train with the Iraqi military _ who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit _ the hometown _ and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

Edit: Here is the original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/13/D8D7I5C83.html

[English assassin]

I don't think the article is biased either way. IMHO it presents facts, a lot of facts, and little or no editorialising. A fact can't be biased.

[Geoffrey S]

Same here. By the looks of things it merely states the sequence of events, without speculating on why it happened or adding opinions. The only bit that could be considered biased is the final section, the quotes from Paul Rieckhoff, but it's hardly representative of the rest of the article as a whole.

[Ronin]

like it was allready said....facts are facts....if it´s real it can´t be biased.

[TinCow]

The very first paragraph is a slight bit iffy, but the rest is just clean descriptive facts. The Rieckhoff statements are just a counter to the White House statements inserted earlier. As such, I say no.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some bias is present, but the bulk of the piece is simple fact.

Biased components:

Use of the term "choreographed" to imply song & dance or entertainment without real content. "Prepared in advance" or "coordinated" would have been more value neutral.

Expansion of the McClellan response by the reporter to note that most Presidential interactions are coordinated/prepared in advance, so that this episode is not particularly unique from that perspective. Failure to note this suggests McClellan's response to be a cover-up, as opposed to a statement of reality. Noting this norm would provide balance, and the QUALITY of information raised by any such "prepared" interaction are dealt with in the following Reickhoff quote anyway.

Reporter also failed to note the basic stance of Mr. Reickhoff's group regarding US involvement in Iraq. Adding this would have made for more complete reportage.

Note: I am referring to the "reporter" in these comments, but I must acknowledge that the reporter may well have done all of these things, only to have an editor remove them.

Overall:

Most conservatives object to the tone of such pieces, not the simple facts related. Mr. Reickhoff's comments, for example, whatever his motivations for them, are on target. Only a few changes and this piece would have been a good recitation of facts and quite cautionary as to the value of scripted events for any leader.

Seamus

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes. While they have cleverly managed to avoid editorialising, they have presented the facts in such a way to make it look as though the answers, along with the questions, had been pre-planned.

Along with the direct writing of how the soldiers gave an upbeat view after Bush said he wanted firsthand knowledge.

Crazed Rabbit

[Red Harvest]

This President considers the free press as being very high on his enemies list. He attacks them continuously. I have been shocked at the amount of restraint show in the past by the media. Consider his attacks on the free press, I think they should take the gloves off and go out of their way to present him like the fool he is, but they don't. They SHOULD be reporting things like this. Bill something as "spontaneous" then rehearse it? You deserve to get smacked around for that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This President considers the free press as being very high on his enemies list.

No just the mainstream liberal press as wel he should.


I have been shocked at the amount of restraint show in the past by the media.

Thats pretty funny.


Consider his attacks on the free press, I think they should take the gloves off and go out of their way to present him like the fool he is, but they don't.

They havent? Consider their attacks upon Bush. Oh thats right you think they treat him to kindly.


Bill something as "spontaneous" then rehearse it? You deserve to get smacked around for that.

Once more only the questions were announced the answers werent staged. This is standard operating procedure for the military. Heck when I was in bootcamp we had a show called operation entertainment come to the base. It was sort of a USO show that traveled around and entertained the troops and was broadcast weekly on tv. You wouldnt believe all the peperation they gave us just to watch.

PS did you think the same of all of Clintons staged events?


And if anything seems to be staged its the "free press's" response. How is it they all say the samething?

[Tribesman]

GAH ...wheres the GAH ?

[Red Harvest]

No just the mainstream liberal press as wel he should.



Thats pretty funny.



They havent? Consider their attacks upon Bush. Oh thats right you think they treat him to kindly.



Once more only the questions were announced the answers werent staged. This is standard operating procedure for the military. Heck when I was in bootcamp we had a show called operation entertainment come to the base. It was sort of a USO show that traveled around and entertained the troops and was broadcast weekly on tv. You wouldnt believe all the peperation they gave us just to watch.

PS did you think the same of all of Clintons staged events?


And if anything seems to be staged its the "free press's" response. How is it they all say the samething?
I'm sure Bush would be much happier in an autocratic state where he controls the press. The rest of us are not.

The press has given the guy far too much leeway. They have been TOO OBJECTIVE in the face of his continuous attacks on what is a very fundamental part of our freedom. Where the media has erred is in not taking him on directly in this regard. Show him for exactly what he is, dispense with his soundbites. He wants war with the press? Give him what he wants. Go out out of the way to balance every one of his propaganda events with a countering gaffe or embarassing behind-the-scenes look. The press has been too timid, when they should have been confrontational.

Despite your attempts to gloss over it, this is just another example of Dubya's team staging something while claiming it is spontaneous. Everyone knows nearly all of these Q&A events are staged. What differs here is the billing. Unfortunately, in a Whitehouse that has less credibility than Nixon, I'm not surprised that they don't get it. This is a case of the press pulling back the curtain, to show the "Wizard" in action. :shocked2:

The danger to our country is not the press, it is those that want to squelch dissent.

P.S. By the way, congrats on getting the Clinton reference in there, you are dependable in that regard. Good luck "fighting the last war" in a political sense--I don't think running against Clinton is going to work any longer, his popularity is likely greater than Dubyas.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm sure Bush would be much happier in an autocratic state where he controls the press. The rest of us are not.


Im sure every president would feel the same way.


The press has given the guy far too much leeway. They have been TOO OBJECTIVE in the face of his continuous attacks on what is a very fundamental part of our freedom. Where the media has erred is in not taking him on directly in this regard.

Again you have to be joking.


By the way, congrats on getting the Clinton reference in there, you are dependable in that regard. Good luck "fighting the last war" in a political sense--I don't think running against Clinton is going to work any longer, his popularity is likely greater than Dubyas.


Maybe it hasnt occured to you and other liberals that Bush isnt going to run again either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Presidents involved in staged media opportunities and pre-prepared interactions is old news. Some are more deft at it (Reagan, Clinton, JFK, FDR) while others look dumb trying (Nixon, Ford, Hoover) but its par for the course. I can't think of a President who did not do such things at least since Coolidge. Roman and Greek politicians probably planted questions from the crowd too.

As to the article, I think GC and myself are on track. It has its bias, but a competent reader can still draw the pertinent facts.

Seamus

[Red Harvest]

Im sure every president would feel the same way.
No, I don't think they would. It is mostly those who have something or a lot of things to hide that villify the press.


Maybe it hasnt occured to you and other liberals that Bush isnt going to run again either.
First, I'm not a liberal. (Nor are you a libertarian, that much is obvious.)

Second, it probably hasn't occurred to you that Bush is still in office. Therefore he is fair game. His policies and the GOP leadership that passed his requests over "Democratic obstructionists" (as they were called) have brought us to the mess we are now in. Afterall, he has yet to veto anything they sent him--something that hasn't happened for 176 years. So you can claim that he and the GOP/conservatives are different animals, but the record shows they behave the same.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

First, I'm not a liberal

Me think thou dost protest too much. If your not a liberal im not a conservative.


Nor are you a libertarian, that much is obvious

Yeah right. Again back that up if you dare.


So you can claim that he and the GOP/conservatives are different animals, but the record shows they behave the same.

Wait a minute. In aanother thread your speaking of a conservative crack up and here your saying their in lockstep.


Second, it probably hasn't occurred to you that Bush is still in office. Therefore he is fair game.

Well Bill is in the news everday. Again why is it you all try to make it seem like hes gone? The guy never misses an opportunity to get some press. Plus he maybe the nations first Firstman. Perish the thought.

[Hurin_Rules]

I would have to say there is a bit too obvious a bias in that article.

I agree mostly with Seamus. I would add that the use of the adjective 'gushed' is unwarranted and polemical. Also, the juxtaposition of Bush's statements that there is massive support for the troops at home with the statistics about Bush's handling of the war. Bush was right here: there IS massive support for the troops themselves. Many people disagree with Bush's policies and handling of the war and still support the troops.

So yes, IMHO, the article does show too much liberal bias. I wouldn't use it as an example to show a left-wing media conspiracy, however; many articles by Fox 'News' are just as or even more biased towards the right. But fair is fair, and this article isn't.

[Redleg]

I would have to say there is a bit too obvious a bias in that article.

I agree mostly with Seamus. I would add that the use of the adjective 'gushed' is unwarranted and polemical. Also, the juxtaposition of Bush's statements that there is massive support for the troops at home with the statistics about Bush's handling of the war. Bush was right here: there IS massive support for the troops themselves. Many people disagree with Bush's policies and handling of the war and still support the troops.

So yes, IMHO, the article does show too much liberal bias. I wouldn't use it as an example to show a left-wing media conspiracy, however; many articles by Fox 'News' are just as or even more biased towards the right. But fair is fair, and this article isn't.

Well for another time - I agree with Hurin. ~D

[Red Harvest]

Me think thou dost protest too much. If your not a liberal im not a conservative.

Yeah right. Again back that up if you dare.
I don't need to, you've already done it for me with the above. ~D Thanks for that. You line right up on the conservative bench, ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation. It isn't libertarian, it is a case of conservatives masquerading as liberatians. I've been referring to the ilk for at least a decade now as "kneejerk conservatives."


Wait a minute. In aanother thread your speaking of a conservative crack up and here your saying their in lockstep.Nice try, Rush. I've been pointing out that there is a fracture occuring among the elements, but it was these same conservatives that fed Bush his/their agenda in the way of legislation. Many want to abandon him now that he has become damaged goods.

Claim what you like, but the House and GOP leadership were working tightly with the President to work in lockstep. The GOP conventions were a farce. Now they want to show dissenting views. Too late, they sold out and the nation is finally catching on.

I'll tell you one thing: While I've had a mix of views that have kept me firmly in the "independent" camp in the past. I'm so disgusted with where the conservatives have led this country, that I have become more "anti-conservative" than anything else in my political leanings. Moderate or independent are not dirty words, despite conservative attempts to paint them so. (Yes, I've seen MANY examples of that here.)

[Aurelian]

This isn't an example of liberal media bias.

I've seen the video with the soldiers being coached. It's real. The event was staged. The soldiers knew the type of questions that would be asked beforehand, and they knew who was to answer each question, and in what order.

That being said, where is the bias? If you read bias into the piece, it's likely to be because your own bias for the Bush team leads you to be defensive when an article suggests that his team "staged" an event. It's an accurate description of what happened, but "staged" carries an implicit negative connotation for most people.

However, Bush's events are usually staged. What would be the purpose otherwise? His PR team uses these events to create an image that they hope will resonate with the viewing public. They don't take chances and randomly pick people to ask him questions (or answer his questions). If somebody asked him a tough question, or gave a negative answer, the coverage of their 'media event' would be dominated by the slip-up. Their job is to keep on message, so they make sure all the participants keep on message.

As an example of just how staged and calculated these events are, Bush's people cancelled a Texas appearance that he had scheduled a few weeks ago during hurricane Rita because the venue was too sunny. You see, they didn't want sunny because their message was that he was in Texas to deal with the hurricane. Sun does not equal hurricane in a visual image. So, they cancelled the event.

President Bush doesn't communicate through town hall meetings, his team prefers to operate under controlled conditions where they can ensure that the people who interact with him are loyalists.

If you don't like that, then your problem should be with the Bush team and not with a reporter who accurately portrays their methods.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Just because conservatives are going out of style doesn't mean the media is bias~;)

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL!!! I remember when General Hugh Shelton (former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton Administration) came to my Airman Leadership class back in 1999. All of our questions were screened before hand. I was not allowed to ask him, "Sir, as a veteran of the Vietnam War and a military man for most of your adult life, is it hard to take orders from a draft dodger?". In fact when my teacher read my question I was told to not even say a word. Its always staged. I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...

[Vykke]

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that an article can contain no falsehoods, yet still be biased. Bias can be shown in which facts are presented, and where, and how.

In addition to some of the word choices mentioned already, it's interesting to note that they spent about 1/3 of the article emphasizing the choreographed nature of the "conversation," even including that little excerpt of the preparations. This seems to imply that it's exceptional and newsworthy that a political leader planned an event like this ahead of time (after all, articles don't usually spend that much space discussing the planned nature of such an event). But it's not exceptional at all, they do it all the time.

So, I'd have to say that this article is biased, though I agree with Hurin that there's plenty of examples of conservative bias too.

[Idaho]

The US media is probably the most stayed, tame and controlled media in the western world. US politicians are the most controlling, rehearsed and closed in the western world.

The US people are a lovely bunch* who deserve better ~:)


*exceptions exist

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Why thank you. I'm more like an englishman like yourself, but I still live in America

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't need to, you've already done it for me with the above. Thanks for that. You line right up on the conservative bench, ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation.

Where am I ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation?


I've been referring to the ilk for at least a decade now as "kneejerk conservatives."


Well that aint me. I guess ill call you a kneejerk liberal from now on. Come on tell what libertarian principles I dont like?


Nice try, Rush. I've been pointing out that there is a fracture occuring among the elements, but it was these same conservatives that fed Bush his/their agenda in the way of legislation. Many want to abandon him now that he has become damaged goods.


More BS. Weve had pretty much the same complaints about Bush for the last 4 or 5 years.


I'm so disgusted with where the conservatives have led this country, that I have become more "anti-conservative" than anything else in my political leanings

The truth is coming out. Your not a liberal just an anti conservative LOL.

One more time I hate both parties. I have never voted republican though in my youth I did vote democratic. You can believe what you like but i know where I stand.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

You've never voted republican and you've voted democratic?

Hey, I'm liking you more and more!~D

EDIT: I actually don't know if I'd even vote Kerry. I just want to be free of anything. I need to move to 'utopia'...

[Tribesman]

I have never voted republican
Despite all the Bush is great rubbish and GOP is the RIGHT way , you can never bring yourself to vote for the muppets .
Fair play to ya Gawain~:cheers:

[Xiahou]

I have never voted republican
Despite all the Bush is great rubbish and GOP is the RIGHT way , you can never bring yourself to vote for the muppets .Not great- just better than the alternative. :no:

As to the article, it shows some bias- but I've certainly read better examples of biased reporting before.

[econ21]

Gawain is a man of hidden depths, IMO. ~:cheers: I believe he has said he opposed the US invasion of Iraq although you'd have to follow his 11,000+ posts rather closely to have picked that up. I sometimes think he plays devil's advocate as much as you do, Tribesman. ~;)

[Red Harvest]

Where am I ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation?
Oh please...I've yet to see you take anything other than the conservative approach, and that includes the private matters side of things.


The truth is coming out. Your not a liberal just an anti conservative LOL.And it is folks like you that have made this change in my thinking over the past two years. I don't embrace the liberal or the conservative dogma, and have a scattering of views. One thing I have figured out, I don't have much to fear from the weakened liberals, but I do have a lot to fear from an out-of-control conservative movement tearing down decades of progress. The "conservative" business leaders went after pensions and health care, the conservative govt. is going after Social Security, and the conservative business leaders have stagnated and stalled their industries, while a conservative president hasn't shown any vision toward preparing this country for the economic future.

One more time I hate both parties.
Yes, Gawain, I've noticed you hate a lot of things. Something to be proud of I suppose.

I have never voted republican though in my youth I did vote democratic. You can believe what you like but i know where I stand.
I have gotten the distinct impression that you actually have no idea where you stand. It became very clear during the "club" formation craze a few months back. You were seeking to belong to all clubs, or control all discussion--it was a Gawain frenzy.

I've seen the same in religious threads, where one minute you are siding completely with the religious conservative view, then the next you are saying something about not being sure you believe in God, but still supporting their view. :dizzy2:

Until the last few weeks you've been downright worshipful of Bush and the GOP, while at the same time claiming you don't vote for them. So I'm left with the conclusion that either you just like to play devil's advocate, or you are way out on the GOP right wing.

You seem to enjoy lumping everyone as either conservative or liberal, with no one in the middle or being split. Folks like McCain and anyone moderate are dismissed as being weak because they don't have extreme views, therefore in your mind they lack conviction.

By the way, I would much rather be called a liberal than a conservative anymore. Liberal was made into a dirty word during the Reagan era as the result of Carter, but right now the same is being done with "conservative." This is inevitable whenever one extreme is pushed too far, a backlash develops. What I still find doubly funny is conservatives spitting out "moderate" with the same tone used for liberal.

[Red Harvest]

Gawain is a man of hidden depths, IMO. ~:cheers: I believe he has said he opposed the US invasion of Iraq although you'd have to follow his 11,000+ posts rather closely to have picked that up. I sometimes think he plays devil's advocate as much as you do, Tribesman. ~;)
You beat me to it, and much more succinctly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Though new here,right from the get-go, I had Gawain classed as a chap who enjoyed (loved, reveled in) the argument most of all. He's closest to a Libertarian, I suspect, though not strictly in that camp. However, if Red Harvest and Gawain were to purposely switch sides in the argument, Red would enjoy the intellectual challenge while Gawain would just have a blast firing bolts with his other hand. Why do you think I suggested them for captains...

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Gawain has, in no way, liberal views. In my opinion at least...

[Devastatin Dave]

Gawain has, in no way, liberal views. In my opinion at least...

Care to provide some proof of that? Why not ask the man himself?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'll find some soon...~;)

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Ok...Let's see here

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43688

Now, I may have missed something, but there you go.

His title, and that club is all the proof I can come up with on the spot...

[Devastatin Dave]

His title, and that club is all the proof I can come up with on the spot...
Wow, great work, you should work for the ACLU.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Come on man, no need to be nasty...

~:grouphug:

[Aurelian]

I just ran across an article in the Village Voice that identifies one of the officers at the Bush photo-op as Master Sergeant Corine Lombardo, 42nd Infantry Division Public Affairs.

One of the Voice's reporters knows her from his time in Tikrit, and says that her job includes taking reporters out to lunch. He also said that she lives in a fortified compound and rarely leaves.

Bush apparently asked her the wrong question: "Is it possible to give us a sense, kind of a calibration of what life was like when you first got there, and what it's like today?"

Her response was to launch into a completely unconnected bit about how swimmingly the training of Iraqi security forces is going, etc., etc. Bush then called her Sergeant Major. Embarrassing.

I'm only mentioning this because it shows just how corrupt and worthless this sort of media display can be. Bush's PR people set up an event where he and military PR people could say nice things to each other in front of the cameras. Then they have the nerve to actually coach the participants in front of the media... and they still expect the media to go along with the idea that this is an unscripted "conversation" with "US troops in Iraq". It's just bad PR.

The media should pull the curtain back on these events more frequently than they do.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And their stupid enough to let the media tape it. This is such nonsense. Again anyone who has been through this sort of thing in the military knows its SOP.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Once more slowly. He didnt give them the answers. I can give you many more examples of presidents and the press itself staging things if you really want to travel down that road.

[Xiahou]

Okay, nobody is debating the right of the president to make the Military do what he pleases within his power. The issue here is that it's being presented to the public as something that it isn't, in order to further his agenda. An Agenda which, thus far, is decidedly big-government.

Once more, you call yourself Libertarian?
I think that's known as an "Irrelevant Conclusion".

[Slyspy]

LOL!!! I remember when General Hugh Shelton (former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton Administration) came to my Airman Leadership class back in 1999. All of our questions were screened before hand. I was not allowed to ask him, "Sir, as a veteran of the Vietnam War and a military man for most of your adult life, is it hard to take orders from a draft dodger?". In fact when my teacher read my question I was told to not even say a word. Its always staged. I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...

That almost made sense. Right up until that last couple of sentences.

[Devastatin Dave]

That almost made sense. Right up until that last couple of sentences.
The last two sentences make perfect sense. If Liberals were TRUELLY commited about stopping terrorism, ending war, and helping people have a fair and democratic government, they would, instead of trying to undercut the efforts of the US and other free nations that are making an attempt to change things, they would ASSIST in the cause instead of growing dreadlocks, smoking weed, and marching around banging on drums yelling out nifty little 60's catch phrases. "Make love not war?" Doesn't do you much good if an extremist Islamofascist just sliced off your head or incinerated you with a nuke.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

The last two sentences make perfect sense. If Liberals were TRUELLY commited about stopping terrorism, ending war, and helping people have a fair and democratic government, they would, instead of trying to undercut the efforts of the US and other free nations that are making an attempt to change things, they would ASSIST in the cause instead of growing dreadlocks, smoking weed, and marching around banging on drums yelling out nifty little 60's catch phrases. "Make love not war?" Doesn't do you much good if an extremist Islamofascist just sliced off your head or incinerated you with a nuke.

That's rediculous. You know terrorists have stepped up there efforts since we've been in Iraq. You know, a veteran (which from what I gathered you are) like yourself, should be looking after soldiers. Bush throws 18 year old kids away to "end terrorism". What use is training when they pack a car with 50 lbs of C4?

Liberals, like myself love the troops. I support them all the time. I hate to see them fail and them die. The grim reality is, we invaded there country. If we're going to do that, they can make us leave them alone by whatever measures they feel nessasary. If that involves blowing themselves up, then that's what they think they must do.

[Strike For The South]

That's rediculous. You know terrorists have stepped up there efforts since we've been in Iraq. You know, a veteran (which from what I gathered you are) like yourself, should be looking after soldiers. Bush throws 18 year old kids away to "end terrorism". What use is training when they pack a car with 50 lbs of C4?

Liberals, like myself love the troops. We love them so much we want them out of danger. If conservatives were TRUELY commited to the soldiers they'd stop throwing them away.


Please tell me you are intoxicated...please:dizzy2:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

No, just really pissed that some one would say I don't care about our soldiers. For some one to say I am a traitor. Do you really think liberals are traitors?

P.S: I shouldn't stoop down to his level, I'll edit that last part...

Please, edit your post to not show what I originally said. I said that without thinking, and am ashamed.

[Devastatin Dave]

No, just really pissed that some one would say I don't care about our soldiers. For some one to say I am a traitor. Do you really think liberals are traitors?

P.S: I shouldn't stoop down to his level, I'll edit that last part...

Please, edit your post to not show what I originally said. I said that without thinking, and am ashamed.

Thank God the veterans of World War II didn't have this kind of support you're offering.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

What are you talking about? When we protest we want them out of there. If we want them out we are looking out for them? Why do you think we are not loyal? I really don't think we're doing anything wrong. I think conservatives, are giving them encouragement, but I think liberal's want them safe as much as anyone. I think you should look at what you're saying more closely...~:cheers:

[Strike For The South]

What are you talking about? When we protest we want them out of there. If we want them out we are looking out for them? Why do you think we are not loyal? I really don't think we're doing anything wrong. I think conservatives, are giving them encouragement, but I think liberal's want them safe as much as anyone. I think you should look at what you're saying more closely...~:cheers:

You can not just divide America into two groups. Allot of people who want diffrent things. Some libs hate the milatary, Some neo-cons dont care how many die they just care about the bottom line. You my friend are oversimplfying the situation.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Don't you want it simpler?

You're right though. I'll even go as far as saying Dave is right too. There are plenty of liberals that hate our militaries, and things like that. Those are the crazy far lefters in which I am ashamed of.

You have to realize, conservatives have the same thing. Many far righters would like to slaughter innocent Iraqi people for what others of their race have done.

I am not one of those far lefters. I support troops, and I'll look at everyone's point of view. I think with any way of thinking there is a limit. Many liberals cross it and conservatives alike.

[Red Harvest]

I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...
Lambasting a foolish, shortsighted, unprepared Administration that is in denial for its mishandling of the efforts does not undercut the troops. Quite the opposite. I support our troops and would have no problem putting my own neck on the line. However, I refuse to sit silently while fools in govt mismanage the war. This isn't about our fighting men and women. This is about the incompetent boobs that failed to properly support them. That would be Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc.

In addition to mishandling the post invasion, they launched the war under false pretenses/justification, and our soldiers are paying the price for the politicians' errors. It undercut us and encouraged the insurgency.

I'm not for setting deadlines for withdrawal in public, it only helps the enemy. But I do expect results. You either do something to force the win, or you get out. Sitting there taking a beating indefinitely for no gain is STUPID in the extreme. At some point, a decision must be made as to whether this is salvageable or a quagmire.

Trying to shift blame to the opposition is foolish. Sheehan and the others didn't screw up this war. Dubya and his legion of simpleton cronies did that. There were voices of dissent in his own party and within the military about what the effort would require, but they were ingnored and ridiculed. Instead, the occupation was done with one hand tied behind our back, all for the sake of political appearances.

What this shows is what a strategic blunder Bush made. He lost the initiative. Instead of being on the offensive, we are now stuck on the defensive. Brilliant, just friggin' brilliant...and I thought Saddam was a dope when it came to military matters.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Couldn't have said it better myself...:bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Give all the examples you want. It doesn't make it right, no matter who's doing it. Clinton or Bush or freaking Nancy Grace, it's all bad.


GC:

You seem to acknowledge that many (most?) Presidents use staged events and interactions to further their political agenda (Correct me if I am wrong).

You then assert that such staged interactions are bad. You label them this way, I presume, because you believe that the staging renders them irrelevant and/or disengenuous (Again, correct me if necessary).

If such efforts to "manage" media presentations are discarded, you leave the Presidency with 2 choices: make few or zero presentations aside from written briefings or have the President always interacting extemporaneously and responsible for handling any and all subjects under the aegis of the adminstration at any moment. You will, or course, recognize the virtual impossibility for anyone -- and certainly not the less-than-glib Dubya -- to handle the latter. If you can only choose a leader who is able to handle virtually all policy subjects extemporaneously, you reduce the pool of potential leaders to the thin fraction of political figures possessing JFK-esque glibness.

As a consumer of political information, I generally assume that some degree of stage management is involved and that the whole event is crafted to further the goals of the administration. Using this interpretive lens, I am able to glean whatever value from it that I, as the consumer, deem appropriate. On the whole, this doesn't bother me; I simply factor the bias in when making my own evaluation -- as I am sure you do as well.

I am not advocating that all Presidential communication be reduced to whole-cloth propaganda, but I believe that implicitly setting up the standard of an "extemporaneous" Presidency is unrealistic and possibly counter-productive. Thoughts?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Couldn't have said it better myself

Well for once your totally correct.~D

By the way as someone who went through this sort of liberal hogwash I can tell you nothing demoralises the troops more than hearing people like you guys claim to support us while undermining our mission. Its the height of hypocrisy.

[Devastatin Dave]

What this shows is what a strategic blunder Bush made. He lost the initiative. Instead of being on the offensive, we are now stuck on the defensive. Brilliant, just friggin' brilliant...and I thought Saddam was a dope when it came to military matters.
And why exactly we are on the defensive? Its because of weak kneed terrorist sympothyzing liberals that, instead of attacking the enemy, they attack their own side (if you can call liberals of the country on the side of the US) only to weaken the position of the United States and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But I'll never convice you of it, your hatred for this Administration comes way ahead of any regard to the country that you were blessed to be born into.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Dave, I'm afraid you're a little to far right. Strike for the South openly expresses his opinions as a conservative and yet I still consider him a good friend. I wish you weren't so nasty about it...

[Red Harvest]

And why exactly we are on the defensive? Its because of weak kneed terrorist sympothyzing liberals that, instead of attacking the enemy, they attack their own side (if you can call liberals of the country on the side of the US) only to weaken the position of the United States and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But I'll never convice you of it, your hatred for this Administration comes way ahead of any regard to the country that you were blessed to be born into.
What a load of CRAP! First of all, I've yet to see these "terrorist sympathizing liberals." They aren't giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Second, liberals didn't create this situation. The poorly considered Iraqi operation did. To put it another way, if someone can't run an operation without having 100% support at home, then their plan is totally unworkable and doomed from the start. Is that your position, that some dissent is the reason the war is not being won?

I was one of those misguided independents that favored going in. I honestly did not believe the Administration could screw this up, and because of European/Arab pressures to end the sanctions, we were reaching a critical point (thanks again France, Germany, etc. ~:pissed: ) My disgust with the Administration has grown out of the strategic blunders used to launch the war, and out of their continued misunderstanding of what they were up against. I'm not letting that color my perception of our forces, but it does effect my judgement of what they can now accomplish.

We are on the defensive, because we never stabilized the country. There aren't any liberals responsible for that failure. Passing the buck isn't going to work.

Worse than that, the fiasco has tied our hands with respect to Iran and North Korea and diverted our attention from Afghanistan, etc.

If you want to look for traitors, find those who mislead our country into backing action on false information. Those are your traitors.

Dissent is not treason. If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Bam...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And the press is suppossed to seek the truth not just pursue their own agenda.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Yeah. You're right.

Look at the post results...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rubbish. A government is elected by the people for the people. They should be expected to answer truthfully to the people whenever they put themselves in a position where quesitons need answering.

Ah...the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Simple really.

Hypothetical:

Reporter: "Mr. President, do you really think our forces can stabilize Iraq?"

President: "Not by themselves, no. I just have to hope and pray that we don't lose too many soldiers over the next 3-5 years as Iraq builds the forces and infrastructure it needs for stability. The great danger here is that public opinion supporting the war will slip enough to where Congress dumps the funding and forces a withdrawal. If that happens, it's 70-30 that Iraq will degenerate into 3 or 4 warring mini-states with at least two of those states serving as bases for terrorism."

--or--

Reporter: "Mr President, isn't it obivous that our economy is going to take a big hit from rising fuel costs?"

President: "Absolutely. And Americans can expect to get hammered at the grocery store as well as the gas station since most of our consumables move by truck. I think it's pretty obvious that people will be cutting back at Christmas this year and most of the drive-travel destination motels might as well lay off the staff now and use the time for maintenance. On the other hand, oil stocks should climb steadily and sweater comapnies should be doing a brisk business, so I don't think the recessionary trend will last much past the Winter. Once the public accepts the higher price as the norm, things will re-balance and it will be smooth sailing."


Yes, GC, I am playing the hyperbole game a bit here to illustrate my point. Do you really think that level of honesty is either likely or helpful?

[Devastatin Dave]

If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.
I believe Cuba would be more your type of Island, RED HARVEST:bow:

[Red Harvest]

I believe Cuba would be more your type of Island, RED HARVEST:bow:
The great thing about the nick is that it has nothing to do with politics or communism. Simple play on grim reaper theme and hair color. The Stalinist's get angry because they think it is some sort of anti-communist/anti-Russian name. And the right wingers think it is pro-communist. Perfect as it draws out both sides into making poorly informed swipes. :smash:

So no, I don't think so.

However, I do think you would like Cuba: authoritarian, single party rule, run by a man in uniform, no dissent. A land where time stands still. Yep, seems a good match.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There is no such thing as too much honesty.



Yes the governnment should have no secrets from us or our enemies LOL. Theres many a time honesty is not the best policy. If your married or have a stedy gf next time she looks terrible and asks how she looks tell her the truth. Let me know the out come.~;)

[Xiahou]

We are on the defensive, because we never stabilized the country. There aren't any liberals responsible for that failure. Passing the buck isn't going to work.

Worse than that, the fiasco has tied our hands with respect to Iran and North Korea and diverted our attention from Afghanistan, etc.

If you want to look for traitors, find those who mislead our country into backing action on false information. Those are your traitors.

Dissent is not treason. If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.
Dissent is well and fine. But, when it consists of nothing but a litany of complaints with no constructive ideas I think it does give a certain level of comfort to our enemies. It shows we are divided and don't support the goals of the military and could give hope that we'll pull out.

There is a difference between saying 'The administration is mismanaging this war, instead of xyz we should be doing abc.' vs 'The administration is mismanaging this war, their bungling is losing the war.'

I'm not going to try to say that an American doesnt have the right to say whatever they want- but some statements can undercut the war effort.

[Red Harvest]

Dissent is well and fine. But, when it consists of nothing but a litany of complaints with no constructive ideas I think it does give a certain level of comfort to our enemies. It shows we are divided and don't support the goals of the military and could give hope that we'll pull out.

There is a difference between saying 'The administration is mismanaging this war, instead of xyz we should be doing abc.' vs 'The administration is mismanaging this war, their bungling is losing the war.'

I'm not going to try to say that an American doesnt have the right to say whatever they want- but some statements can undercut the war effort.
I agree.

There were folks offering just that sort of criticism, and they were rebuffed.

So what do we do now? Beats me. The big mistakes were made early on, and many of them can't be compensated for now.

[Devastatin Dave]

So what do we do now? Beats me.

LOL, so you are just going to disagree and not give an alternative!!! You just proved his point and the point I've made. Its all snipe, snipe, snipe, but ZERO alternatives. God, do you even read what you write!?!?! You sound like John Kerry, "I have a plan". Mr Kerry, what is your plan, "Well, uhh, I would just do things differently, did I mentioned that I served in Viet Nam?". LOL!!!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

DevDave:

In general, I agree with you that those who complain without presenting a viable alternative aren't adding to the discussion. I'd give Red H a bit of room though, since his posts strike me as more of the "I wish it hadn't been malfed, why doesn't anybody do something" variety more so than the Phil Donahue "Bush did it to make his friends rich, we have to cut and run now like a whipped dog" drivel we hear all to often.

I too am frustrated that the time/resources going into the stablization of Iraq make it harder for us to wax the next terror-haven/rogue state in line. Backing off Iran or NK, or taking Syria apart like the dime watch it is would please me more. However, since Iraq is broke and must be fixed if we're gonna have a long-term win, we simply have to finish the job well.

I do suspect that we need a lot more boots than we have though. The finest army in the world can't use multi-million dollar force multipliers to identify 5 badguys up in the third room on the left, back hallway, flush them out and take them down. That's a job, and a long slow tough one, for the dog-faces. I think our gals and guys are doing it and doing it well -- but they're not in a position to do that and something else, and I wish the DoD had been more honest with itself about that from the get go.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

GC: I agree in principle with what you are saying.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how we would get to the point where Seamus' interview could take place.

If it were implemented overnight, American politics would combust, setting in motion a chain of events that would destroy the sun.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

GC:

In principle, it is likely that all of us would agree with you, not just Atpg. I certainly don't enshrine mendacity as the apex of social interaction.

In practice, political leaders have been leaving out details, glossing over unpleasant facts and employing misdirection since at least the time of the Roman Republic -- and probably well before. I do not think our current era to be any worse and, I admit with a touch of sadness, not any better either.

Yet it is demonstable that some of the lies and mis-direction were perpetrated IN the public interest and not at the expense thereof. So where and how do you draw the line in order to serve the greatest good?

Absolute truth at all times and in all situations may not always be to the good.

Thoughts?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I disagree with you. I think unabated truth should be demanded of politicians by the people who put their livelyhood on the line by voting them into office.

Compadre, you are, at the very least, consistent. I don't think we'll collectively head in the direction you suggest, but if 4 decades have taught me anything, it is that I do NOT know all that much. We shall see.

[Red Harvest]

LOL, so you are just going to disagree and not give an alternative!!! You just proved his point and the point I've made. Its all snipe, snipe, snipe, but ZERO alternatives. God, do you even read what you write!?!?! You sound like John Kerry, "I have a plan". Mr Kerry, what is your plan, "Well, uhh, I would just do things differently, did I mentioned that I served in Viet Nam?". LOL!!!
And he could not have done ANY worse than Bush, nor could Gore.

I don't have any easy solution. It isn't my fault that they guy you elected screwed this up so badly. Have you got a solution? Put it forward. Replacing those in charge in '04 was my best hope of finding an answer. I upheld my end, while you got suckered.

You can't really have a solution until you analyze the problem and figure out how you got here. (Hint: it wasn't liberals that made this mess.) So I've been focusing on how we got to this point. "Mission Accomplished", "Bring 'em on!" and other assinine amateurish approaches got us where we are to day. Poor planning and delusional thinking got us here.

The situation in Iraq is not helping us in our aims as a nation, nor is it going to without some unforseen changes. It isn't up to us anymore. It is up to the Iraqi's.

Left with few options, my solution: Give the Iraqi's about a year to pull themselves together and get control of their country--make it clear today that we are not staying indefinitely to prop them up because they can't agree with one another. Ultimately it is about them, let them know they have to do this. If they don't want to have a unified country and want to have a civil war, we can't force unification on them. If they can't do it with our help in a year, then they aren't going to, so pull out and be done with it. If they start getting a handle on it and progress is clear, then remain as needed/requested in declining amounts for a few years.

Enforcing things as a long term occupier, with no real Iraqi govt. wont' work. It is folly.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Dave, I'm afraid you're a little to far right. Strike for the South openly expresses his opinions as a conservative and yet I still consider him a good friend. I wish you weren't so nasty about it...
What about me? ~D :book: :deal2: :rifle:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And he could not have done ANY worse than Bush, nor could Gore.


Even for you this is a ridiculous claim. Maybe they would have done netter and maybe they would have done worse. Of course my opinion is they would have done worse but I wouldnt say they could not have done better. Unlkike you Im no Nostradmas.

[Red Harvest]

Even for you this is a ridiculous claim. Maybe they would have done netter and maybe they would have done worse. Of course my opinion is they would have done worse but I wouldnt say they could not have done better. Unlkike you Im no Nostradmas.
Oh really? I fail to see anything ridiculous about it. We have a president who can't seem to get anything important right. It is not much of a leap at all to say the other choices would have done a better job. No doubt there are portions that they would have mishandled. However, neither of them had Bush's arrogant "do-it-my-way/don't-listen-to-others" approach. It is hard to imagine either making bigger blunders than the guy currently in the office. Charisma does not equate to good decision making.

Looking back at 2000:

International relations would be better.
Energy policy would have been better.
The annual budget deficit would be much smaller.
We would not have gone to war under a false pretense.
The national debt would be ~$2 trillion less, giving us far more flexibility.
If we went into Iraq to topple Saddam, we wouldn't have been immediately discredited by lack of WMD's.
If we invaded we likely would have used a larger occupying force and had a better chance at stability/success. That's the difference in actually listening to what experts suggest about force requirements, rather than claiming you know it all.
Disaster relief would have been better managed from the top (probably still not great, but again, certainly not as bad.)
We would still have some diplomatic capital in dealing with Iran and North Korea.


This Administration has successfully painted our nation into a corner. We've got our forces tied up militarily in a defensive role that they are not designed for. We've lost our initiative from both a diplomatic and a military perspective in the war on terror. The national experiment with supply-siding has been a bust, so we are running massive deficits with no end in sight. Despite all the supposed efforts toward homeland security, we've proven twice that we cannot evacuate a major city if needed, nor provide much aid within the 48-72 hour window.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Looking back at 2000:

International relations would be better.

More amicable certainly. Whether or not the greater degree of amicability served U.S. interests would depend on how you define those interests.

Energy policy would have been better.

Marginally at least. Certainly CAFE standards and such would have be established and some decrease in gasoline use would've been likely.

The annual budget deficit would be much smaller.

Very likely. Defense spending would be far less, given the likelihood that no Iraq War would have occurred, and the Bush Administration really hasn't cut domestic spending to the bone by any definition, have they?

We would not have gone to war under a false pretense.

While I might argue with your premise here, setting that aside I would agree that no invasion of Iraq would have occurred. The action if Afghanistan would have been fairly similar, along with troops deployed in support of the Phillipines etc. and a greater number of covert ops strikes at AQ facilities, but the conflict in Iraq would have been very unlikely with a Gore administration.

The national debt would be ~$2 trillion less, giving us far more flexibility.

I think your numbers are a notch optimistic here, but I agree there would have been less deficit by a considerable margin, as I have noted above.

If we went into Iraq to topple Saddam, we wouldn't have been immediately discredited by lack of WMD's.

The invasion of Iraq, under Gore, probably would not have occurred. Had it occurred, it would have been under UN aegis, limited in scope, and any occupation would have been both multinational and brief.

If we invaded we likely would have used a larger occupying force and had a better chance at stability/success. That's the difference in actually listening to what experts suggest about force requirements, rather than claiming you know it all.

As noted above, it would (had it occurred at all) been a multinational effort. If it had to rely on US forces alone, I suspect that the number of "boots" available under a Gore administration would have been fewer than we have now. Under Gore, DoD spending would have been less than under Bush, with a greater effort made emphasizing participation in multi-national police efforts and somewhat of a de-emphasis on offensive capability.

Disaster relief would have been better managed from the top (probably still not great, but again, certainly not as bad.)

Well, both parties have been subject to cronyism, especially for "minor" posts like FEMA. Hopefully both have learned their lessons on that score. I suspect it would have been a bit of a wash, but you may be correct.

We would still have some diplomatic capital in dealing with Iran and North Korea.

We had little with either in any case. Both are pursuing their own objectives so as to strengthen their internal control and international positions. Their perception of American inneffectuality seems pretty constant regardless of who's in office. The believe, probably accurately, that we won't kill our sons and daughters by the 10s of thousands to stop them, so they have little worry about our supposed power.




As to your summary point on Iraq -- that only the Iraquis can make it work -- you are obviously correct. I don't think that a 12-month prop-up is realistic. It's too rich a target. Unless we were to provide them with an even better target elsewhere, tearing Iraq in 3 and igniting conflict between the pieces serves the Wahabist-fringe groups long term goals.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Having now gone point by point, I will state my own view.

I am happy Bush and not Gore was in control following 9-11. Bush is a cowboy, has antagonized everybody, makes our allies cringe, and is proving to be no military genius. But he's trying to win -- not to maintain status quo ante.

Every previous admin has let us down on this since Nixon. Such terrorism must be extirpated for the world to move forward. Criminalizing it, speaking out against it in international forums and so on are all nice, but accomplish nothing. The only way to win is to take point, accept that everyone will loathe you for it, but to keep going until the job is done. There will be no thanks, there will be no payback, fewer people will like or respect us after terrorism is destroyed than did before 9-11. It still has to be done.

[Meneldil]

There will be no thanks, there will be no payback, fewer people will like or respect us after terrorism is destroyed than did before 9-11. It still has to be done.

*If* terrorism is ever destroyed. To me, it looks like something we'll have to live with.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

*If* terrorism is ever destroyed. To me, it looks like something we'll have to live with.

Unfortunetly most likely correct...:embarassed:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's ignorant to think terrorism can be destroyed. Especially since it's something our own government is willing to support and utilize when it suits their needs. Al Qaida was our invention, after all.

And it is asinine to simply "accept" a situation where our only choice would be to play target or to slink home like a whipped puppy. I'm well aware that a universal elimination of terrorism is impossible, but it is within our capabilities to eradicate the majority of them, politically marginalize them, undo much of their support and thereby reduce it to localized nuisance levels.

Yes, in the past we have supported terrorism. We did fund and in some cases train people who would later coalesce into Al Qaida. If you are going to argue that that past bad decision prevents us from correcting the situation in the present then you are advocating a moral purism that is not only diconnected from political reality but fundamentally self-defeating. If you make a mistake, you clean it up, you don't sit down and whine about how bad you are as a person and let anyone who wishes to kick you around.

[Xiahou]

Al Qaida was our invention, after all.That's a flat-out distortion, one that I'm tired of. Let's see some evidence to back up that claim.

[Redleg]

That's a flat-out distortion, one that I'm tired of. Let's see some evidence to back up that claim.


He is confusing the support of the Afganstan Rebels against the Soviet Union with the formation of AQ. Typical logical of those who want to everything the fault of the United States

[Xiahou]

It makes the claims of "We're supporting freedom!" alot more reasonable if we are not holding ourselves to a hypocritical standard.So, was it Soviet "freedom" that the Afghan mujhadeen was fighting against ?

[Xiahou]

So now we get to decide where the "Freedom Fighter" and "Terrorist" line is drawn? I don't buy it.
What are you talking about? Who said freedom fighter?

[Strike For The South]

lesser evils sometimes compromises have to be made forthe greater good

[Crazed Rabbit]

You're the one implying that we were right to support the Afghan Terrorists, no?

Um, when you fight against a military, you're not a terrorist.

And, we only gave support to native Afghans; not the fighters trucked in from around the Middle East.

Crazed Rabbit

[Strike For The South]

Rubbish. The government should not take it upon itself to make such immense decisions. Especially when they just might get the country involved in a prolonged war later on.


Isolationism has never worked for America never will. We had the power to stop the Soivets and we did

[Strike For The South]

OOooooh, the ebil soviets! Communism was bad, but it wasn't as bad the monsters we've had a large hand in creating. At least the USSR was answerable to the rest of the diplomatic community.


how could we have kown that?

[Strike For The South]

How could we not? Terrorism isn't new.

True but the Soviets posed more of a threat you cant divide things. sometimes gray area is there

[Strike For The South]

Rubbish. The soviets could be contained diplomatically. Despite that, i'd have less of an issue with sponsoring terrorism if the american people at large had been consulted first. However, that wasn't option. And secrecy from your own people is deplorable in any fashion--this was taxpayer money going to train these terrorists, who later went on to form Al-Qaida.

It wasn't Terrorism that brought down the soviet union. It was Capitalism the world 'round, and diplomatic pressure. Not to mention the incompetence of all the russian leaders after Stalin.


We thought they could be allies. the world is like a family comprimises have to be made and sometimes we have to bite our lip and go on. It sucks but sometimes there is just no other way

[Red Harvest]

He is confusing the support of the Afganstan Rebels against the Soviet Union with the formation of AQ. Typical logical of those who want to everything the fault of the United States
Yes, similar also to the claims Gawain likes to make about Kosovo, and the ones that folks like to make about Chechnya at the time of the first Chechen invasion.

There is a considerable difference between a freedom movement and a terrorist movement. In general terms, freedom movements will agree to a peace once they are granted some autonomy...terrorists just step up their attacks. Terrorist movements are not satisfied with establishing states, they are out for the destruction of other nations and wanton slaughter. Terrorism is essentially violent extortion and wanton destruction.

[Xiahou]

Xihaou, for example, seems to think America's crap don't stink.Another irrelevant conclusion. I call you on a gross distortion, therefore I think "America's crap don't stink"?

I assume you've yeilded that point since you've done nothing to back up your assertion that we "invented Al Qaeda"?


Um, when you fight against a military, you're not a terrorist. Yup, I think that's an important point.

[Ser Clegane]

An observation:

In this thread I have seen people called "traitors" and the opinions/statements of other participants in the discussion were repeatedly labeled as "rubbish" or "BS".

Especially the latter is an "phenomenon" that seems to be very common in Backroom discussions (or probably in internet discussions in general).

Personally, I think this
a) is extremely rude
b) only provokes defensive reactions from your discussion partner

I believe I am not the only one who thinks that derogative remarks are not really the most appropriate way to counter arguments

Thanks for your attention :bow:

Ser Clegane

[Xiahou]

We funded the Afghan's--including Osama--and gave them the capability to turn into what they are now.
Wrong. Do you have any shred of information to back that up?


"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"

... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

No doubt, we supported guerillas/insurgents/whatever who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. But Osama's ilk were a different matter, we had no reason, need, or interest in supporting them. Not to mention, Bin Laden wasnt set up in the country until years later. If you're trying to to say the USA shouldn't be able to have covert operations- you're entitled to have that debate. But, don't make reckless accusations.

[Xiahou]

You can't see the difference between Afghan rebels and the Afghan Arabs?

[Adrian II]

You can't see the difference between Afghan rebels and the Afghan Arabs?That is what amazes me too. Zbigniew Brzezinski has admitted that the United States began supporting Afghan mujahedeen early in 1979, before the Soviet invasion, as part of a scheme to lure them into Afghanistan. The day after the Soviets took the bait, Brzezinski wrote Carter a letter in which he proposed to turn Afghanistan into the Soviets' own 'Vietnam'. The ploy was very succesful, the USSR bled to death on the Afghan poppy fields.

The collaboration between Afghan fighters and foreigners really took shape after 1989, and particularly after 1991 (Gulf War I), when Osama's outfit and the Pakistan-inspired and -financed Taleban began working together and the Arab 'Afghanistan brigade' was turned into a terrorist movement that sought targets outside Afghanistan. Even after the Taleban took power in most of Afghanistan in 1996, their relationship with most Afghan tribes remained tenuous at best. Needless to say American support had come to an end well before that time.

[Xiahou]

Well said. :bow:

I hate to drag out the Boogeyman, but this twisted line of thought (US funded Bin Laden) was made popular by Moore I think.

[Redleg]

The Mujehadeen aren't the only US-Sponsored Terrorists out there, you know. Contras, anyone?


The Mujehadeen were not defined as Terrorists - that they might or might not have evolved into the Taliban and AQ does not distract from what thier initial purpose was now does it?

Blinded Idealogue statements are only that.

Now to what the Contras were or were not depends all on what side of the fence you wish to sit upon. They in essence were a mix of both, much more so then what the Mujehadeen were - The Contra's were freedom fighters because of the indengious nature of the tribes that were involved - and that they had an initial conflict with the new government in that regards. Some would also call them terrorists because of the nature of thier conflict and how they were funded, and that they used tactics very similiar to what is being used in Israel by groups such as Hamas and other such organizatins. (edited to add the last part of the last sentence.)

[Redleg]

Terrorists are terrorists. The Mujehadeen were no different than the Insurgency in Iraq, both in function and in purpose.


Well I don't consider the insurgency a terrorist act when they target soldiers or governmental apperatus - since that is an act of war. The Mujehadeen on its intial conception and actions was not a terrorist organization.

Your placing an idealogue arguement on an area that is not black and white - but multiple shades of grey. An insurgency by itself does not consitute terrorism.

Insurgency can cross the line into criminal acts - however that does not mean that the initial reasoning for thier actions is terrorism - but the overthrow of a regime that either was a puppet regime or one that was to hostile to the way they believed their country should be run.

[Redleg]

Shades of grey huh? I don't think Bush would agree with you. With us or Against us and all that.

So a nation that is invade does not have the right or the ability to have the people raise up and attempt to overthrow the puppet governement? That is what an insurgency is.

Again President Bush has his opinion I have mine. An Insurgency is just that - an uprising by the people of the occupied nation attempting to overthrow the occupying power and its puppet government. If they concentrate on the government and the military they are not terrorists by the rules of war. Now if they come from outside of the occupied nation - they take their chances on being tried as criminals and summarily executed for thier actions. Now the summary execution doesn't happen but they get to visit a tropical Island far from home.



However, shades of grey are not acceptable. Who gets to decide what's what? People who have no business doing it, is who. People who will waste my tax dollars on crap i'd rather not have it wasted on--such as this war--is who.

So the insurgency that was done by the Mujehadeen had no business being funded by the United States - I guess you find it acceptable what the Soviet Union used on the Afganstan people during that conflict. You might want to check into what happen verus trying the tax dollar arguement here about the Mujehadeen - because what the Soviet Union did to the Afganstan people makes the United States look saintly with the Abu Graib scenerio. Your intermixing arguements concerning multiple things without any real knowledge it seems of a couple of them. Protest the war with Iraq by all means - but at least don't attempt to lump blind idealogue statements together - it makes your postion very weak, and seemly well rabid for a lack of a better term.

Using your wasting tax dollars arguement - doesn't fly either - since I could say the same thing about many of the governmental functions that I don't agree with.




Shades of grey only come into play when you are trying to justify the whole thing. Terrorism is terrorism, and it is black and white.

Not at all - the Mujehadeen was an internal insurgency fighting against the Soviet Occupation - they fall well within the rules of war - try reading the Hague Convention some time. They fall into a shadow of grew area because the activitly recruited foreign fighters who flocked to help repel the Soviet invasion. Futhermore the shades of grey comes when one reviews some of thier actions during that conflict. Same thing can be said of the Soviet Union's actions during that conflict - using chemicals on people - you might want to look into Yellow Rain as it was used in Afganstan. You might want to check out a movie called if I remember it correctly Tank.

Then on the Contra's it consistent of many groups - at least 2 of them were legimate insurgents fighting against the government because of their own desired endstate - one which happened to be slightly against the United States - the rest well they definetly fall into several categories.

Again an insurgency does not consitute terrorist activity - nor should it always be classified as such. If your stating that - then you have no business supporting the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution - because that is exactly why it was written - for the people to be able to overthrow an oppressive government.

[Xiahou]

You might want to check out a movie called if I remember it correctly Tank.
Are you talking about The Beast (http://imdb.com/title/tt0094716/)? I thought it was a really good movie- haven't seen it in years though.

[Redleg]

I have no problem with insurgencies. Morally, there is always both reason to support and revile an insurgency.

And therefor you see the shade of grey that is an insurgency - which is different from what you initially stated.



My problem is with your insistence that some deserve our support, and some don't.

My opinion is that some do deserve our support and others don't.



Now, if the government was so honest as to say quite honestly "Alrighty--we support these guys, because it'll help us out. We don't support these ones, because we don't care. And we'll be fighting these ones because they're trouble for us." I would have less of an issue. Instead, we've got "They hate freedom!" and such BS.

Then you might want to see the number of insurgencies that are going on in the world - and the number that the United States has no involvement in. Your looking only at one it seems - the Insurgency in Iraq, which is against the United States occupation and its established local government. What about the insurgency in the Philipines which the United States supports the Philipino government in its actions? Then there is the assistance we provide to several countries in South America against their insurgencies - and a few we probably still help fund. The United States pretty much has minimual involvement in all the insurgencies in Africa, and the few that are going on in Asia.



To recap my theme in this thread so far, it's the lack of honesty in the system that I have an issue with. From all sides.

Politics have never been honest especially when its played on a global scale between nations.

[Redleg]

Are you talking about The Beast (http://imdb.com/title/tt0094716/)? I thought it was a really good movie- haven't seen it in years though.

Yes indeed that is the one

[Redleg]

Fine line. I never said that shades of grey didn't exist, I simply stated that the government does not have the right to make that determination on it's own.

Oh but it does - we granted them that power many years ago. We vote in out elected representives to represent us in Congress. So yes we did give them that power.




Where do you draw the line? When national security is at stake? When it is crucial to winning a war? When it gets illegal money in the hands of our own government? When it advances an agenda that has never seen the light of democratic process?


Intermixing questions now are we - the answer is determined by how you feel about the circumstances. By the way support of the Mujehedeen had the support of Congress. Support of the Contra's was determined to be illegal and several individuals paid for violating the law



You can't have the silver lining without the cloud. No matter where you draw the line, someone will bastardize it. Insurgencies and Rebellions are the most deplorable methods one can use to further an international agenda. They are not answerable to greater diplomacy, most of their actions can be hidden from the very people who's interest is supposedly being served, and--as we see today--they can and often do turn against you.


Because someone bastardizes we should withdraw and not support any group that is waging an insurgency especially if the we agree with it. Tsk Tsk


Minimal inolvement in the insurgencies in Africa? Really? Are there not Al-Qaida connections being touted around by the whitehouse? Did we not have at least partial involvement in several of the most unjust dicatorships that now preside in Africa?

Check out our history of involvement in Africa - we are historically involved in only one nation there. THat has been the bullwark of Europe until very recently. Our one attempt at major involvement in Africa ended in failure.



The Philipenes? You can't even begin to draw a clear picture there. The original insurgency was against the Spanish--who were most unjust to the native population. After the Spanish-American war, we fought them--much to inflamed opinion of many prominent americans. During WWII we supported them against the Japanese, and now we fight them again? Do you begin to see what i mean?

Oh I know a lot about the Philipines compared to you. Many of my friends are from their - I served with several philipinos whill in the service and have knowledge of their personal situations. Care to guess how many times that Insurgency has changed its cause to get support?



Insurgencies do not go away, and serve nobody's interest in the long run.

Incorrect - you might want to study the history of the French Underground during WW2, Vietnam, and yes even the United States Revolutionary War. As you mention what about the efforts of the Philipino insurgency against the Japanese? Care to guess how many Japanese Divisions were tied down. Then there is the partisan effort in Europe especially in Yugoslavia - care to guess how many German Divisions that insurgency tied down during WW2. Care to guess what effect the Mujehedeen had on the Soviet Union? Care to guess the effect the Viet Cong had on the United States? You might want to read up on the Tet Offensive a little.



As a rule, it is dirty diplomacy of the highest order to use them. Is America not supposed to be riding the white horse here? That's all you ever hear from the Whitehouse: "We're just! We're free, democratic, and correct!" Yet all I seem to hear from you guys is "Well, other people do it too."


Again your attempting to confuse the defination and the issue. Insurgency is not a dirty diplomacy - Insurgency is an upraising of the local people against what they believe to be an oppressive government or an occuping force. Some insurgencies should be support because of this reason alone - others need to be carefully looked at before deciding which way to go with it. And nice attempt to put words in my mouth so to speak. Blinded Idealogue statements are just that blinded and easy to refute. Try reading again what I have stated.



That's no excuse. Especially considering that they could be, if the effort was put in to being the first.

Who said it was an excuse - its a statement. International Politics has never been one of honesty. Its always been about strength and getting what your nation needs out of it.

If I wanted international politics to be honest - then I would want a one-world government and give up my freedom.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh but it does - we granted them that power many years ago. We vote in out elected representives to represent us in Congress. So yes we did give them that power.

I agree with Redleg here. If we have to go to a plebescite for every issue of significance we'll end up with political paralysis. I'm not saying that the electorate shouldn't be more involved and more aware -- both would help -- but we have a republic for good reasons.


Again your attempting to confuse the defination and the issue. Insurgency is not a dirty diplomacy - Insurgency is an upraising of the local people against what they believe to be an oppressive government or an occuping force. Some insurgencies should be support because of this reason alone - others need to be carefully looked at before deciding which way to go with it. And nice attempt to put words in my mouth so to speak. Blinded Idealogue statements are just that blinded and easy to refute. Try reading again what I have stated

GC, the problem you evoke is in attempting to reconcile political realities with the ideals you express. I think it may be mixing things up and Redleg may be responding to that. To clarify, do you:

A) Oppose US support of any insurgency on the grounds that it is an internal matter of another state and that we should never participate is such.

B) Accept that we and other country's will support insurgencies in some cases and oppose others based on our national interests, but expect the government to claim that and just that when stating reasons for our support (e.g. Our goal in supporting the mujahedeen was to BLANK with the CCCP, so the Press Sec should say that in more or less those words).

C) Believe that US support for any insurgency denies us a moral right to oppose that insurgency later if it distorts into terrorism etc.

D) Believe that there exists no difference between terrorism and insurgency and that to support one is to support the other.

Not to pigeonhole you, just to get a sense of things and to see if you and Redleg are "speaking past" one another more than arguing a point.