Yep, the war is lost because Newsweek said so.

They are the enemy, even though they don't know it.

The Left, the indymidiots, the america haters, the naysayers, the squawkers, the moonbats, and yes, even our own media.

I had been hoping to read about "suspected" terrorists found in their homes with slashed wrists or a broken neck, post 9-11, to go along with the major military actions.

Time Magazine's feature article is "So, What Went Wrong".

I'm still not entirely on board with the idea of not invading enemy states. Hunting terror cells, weapons dealers, et al, is one thing, but the money is the problem and it comes from states.

Yes, the media have become an enemy. I was wondering who would be the first to point this out. And it has often seemed to me that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, et al. have been the only adults visible in government who have seen the big picture.

I have become totally disgusted by the media, the so-called intellectuals, and the Democrats, who have repeated the same old tired cliches that I have known all my life, and have refused to understand that THINGS HAVE CHANGED. We are in a deadly war for our survival, both as a civilization and as human beings who live in the United States.

I have often thought that one reason Bush hasn't tried hard to defend his policies (i.e. WMD) is because he knows it is fruitless and the American public will become tired of the issue. I believe that he is purposely playing the whole deadly business in a very low-key way.

Winston Churchill said, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be protected by a bodyguard of lies."

In today's morally inverted world, the media are not "protecting" the truth, they are undermining it.

25 J'lem bus passengers file high court petition against IAF to ensure they continue targeted killings

This is what it is coming to: the people demanding that they be defended.

One of the problems is that the media were never held accountable for all their inane and incorrect claims while the war was going on, either.

Nobody ever learns.

OT:

2 Canadian Soldiers died in Afghanistan...no US media coverage!

Canadians need a little more respect when they take it on the chin in US led wars...

Ha ha

two splodydopes detonate themselves near a dry cleaner used by US troops in Kirkuk, northern Iraq. No US casualties. explosive belts.
LULULULULULULULULULU

I heard the advertisment for that Time article while listening to the radio yesterday and my. jaw. dropped.

The woman speaking said, in her oh so sultry voice, "Check out tomorrow's Time for 'What Went Wrong With the US Plan in Iraq'."

I was, well, nonplused. I couldn't believe what I just heard. After the tens and tens of e-mails and interviews I've read from marines, judges, actors, and the like who have actually seen the reconstruction, I knew this article would be, well, a load of horseshit. If not outright horseshit, then enough skewing to leave the impression that the military is being savaged by a redoubtable foe whom we will never defeat, the Iraqi people are unhappy, the power is not on everywhere, the lack of perfection is the definition of failure...blah, blah.

Death is too good for leftwing media types like this. They should be put in the center of the worst parts of Iraq.

If they were, they could go shopping because the truth is, there have been more murders here in New Orleans last month then soldiers in Iraq.

Do I live in a quagmire?

Will we cancel Mardi Gras?

Will the media film anything other than girls gone wild video?

Anyone know of a country where it's not against the law to maim a liberal?

For the "absolutely laziest man in the world"...

When you need a helping hand...

#10 Jon

Interesting that the same people who say that the United States has forgotten Afghanistan do the same thing.

Also:

1) Don't expect respect from the media - it's a US-led war, remember?
2) The United States of America is grateful for the sacrifices their allies make. Always have been, always will be.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

That Newsweek cover is pathetic. Our media lefties are still trying, bless they're shriveled, blackened souls. Charles posting that image-grab just saved me from busting a gut in public later when I go to the bookstore.

I'd add that these pukes using a photo of a soldier--who apprears to be overwhelmed with grief--as propaganda for their cause is typical.

No one in 1945 expected troops to be in Europe for the next 60 years- or guessed why they would be there. The Marshall plan didn’t start until 1949. Budapest was 1956. You can’t carry comparisons with WW2 or Cold war very far- but this ain’t 1945; maybe it’s 1941 or 1942. It’s near the end of the first (or second) campaign in a long war. Perils of the TV generation: a short attention span.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here. Just so sick of this s__t.

Disgusting.

If not for the Internet, and alternative news outlets, the "mainstream" media -- where nine out of ten vote Democrat -- would have every American believing Iraq was a "quagmire."

Its pathetic how they use the lives of 50 million liberated Iraqis and Afghans as pawns in their sick game of undermining a Republican President.

Shame on them.

The Executive Editor of Salon.com was honest last April:

Salon.com
April 11, 2003

Liberation day

By Gary Kamiya, executive editor of Salon

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong...

Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world.

[Link: salon.com...]

#14 Dirk Diggler

LMFAO!

That's just too funny to be true!

#8 colt

So maybe we need a little of the same thing here. A class action suit requiring all the war opponents to insure (financially) the if their policies are imposed we won't be subjected to terrorism. Great post. lots of ideas.

#10 Jon:

No US coverage? You could at least look around a bit before you make sweeping statements like that.

Two Canadian Peacekeepers Killed in Kabul

#21

No US coverage? You could at least look around a bit before you make sweeping statements like that.

Don't you know that Fox News is not a legitimate media outlet and that it's just a right wing propoganda machine? Try again.

Time and Newsweek should be displayed in the comic book racks, for all the reality they report.

The media won't rest until they have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Basically, they love Vietnam so much that they are trying to force the war on terror into the vietnam mold, whether it will fit or not.

#14 Dirk- Ok, we need a translation. How do I order this? How much cash do they want?
Understand, this isn;t for me , it;s for, uh, - a friend. Yeh, that's it.

I was actually wondering when Canada was going to get around to noticing that one of her citizens was tortured by the Saudis. Guess they're still too busy seething about Ashcroft.

#5 Colt: agreed. It would be disastrous to take "regime change" out of our toolbelt. The Assads of the world have to either go, or be frightened into cooperating.

I also don't know if I agree with the "take this out of the media" strategy. This is a propaganda war, too, and it must be won.

#10 Jon:

2 Canadian Soldiers died in Afghanistan...no US media coverage!

You mean like this sort of US media coverage?

#20 dgd

To be honest, I'd be happy to let them come down from their ivory towers and visit the victims, participate in the clean-up, etc.

#21 BH

My appoligies...silly of me to rely on MSNBC and CNN.

But I was taking a shot at US media in my post. Not at the people of the US.

Thank goodness for the Internet...atleast it is possible to get fully informed after referincing SEVERAL sites.

#27 OR

Exactly. Though I'm less sure about the media thing. With the NYT, CNN, et al, controlling what they broadcast, how can the propaganda war be won?

The reality is that the Bush administration now finds itself in the position of the one adult in a room full of unhappy children.

That's a money quote.

My question to y'all is, do the "media" hate Bush that much to see us fail in Iraq and the WoT, or is it pure laziness on the part of the researchers, or going for broke with the headlines to sell the news? I loath the main stream media, but I still have a hard time understanding how they could be so evil as to wish failure on everything Bush touches for the sake of politics. Am I being naive?

OT -- Not a big surprise (unless you believe WorldNetDaily, which I manifestly don't):

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com
U.S. Weapons Hunter Says He Has Found No WMD in Iraq So Far

I forgot to thank Dick Cheney in my post #6. The media hates him because he headed Halliburton. One would think that Halliburton was the Devil Incarnate--much scarier to the media than nuclear Pakistan and nuclear North Korea.

Anyway, I got interested in Cheney (thanks to the media, I must admit) when I read that while "at an undisclosed location" during Sept. 2001, he started studying the works of Victor Davis Hanson. I like a leader who wants to learn new things.

So I want to be sure to thank him publicly for thinking about how to defeat the Islamofacists, especially those with WMD.

in the lead up to the war, which I opposed on legal grounds, NOT because I'm against liberating oppressed people or think we should wait until a mushroom cloud tells us we have an enemy, the media was nearly completely pro-White House...call it what you want...that was the long and short of it.

now the media has swung the other direction and is criticizing the war effort and the White House...not condemning them, as many Dems are doing, but criticizing them...I throw my hands up in frustration and don't know what to say...but I know I prefer it this way.

One assumption when the Press was "with the program" was that it had been bought by Bush's wealthy supporters, Murdoch, et al. well that's proving to be money poorly spent if true.

Another assumption was that war is good for ratings, so the networks, who didn't want to see Fox or CNN claim all the ratings were trying the pro-war approach.

Another assumption was simply that the world had changed and the press was as lost about what to make of it all as the rest of were, so they were trying their best to be patriotic and minimize their criticisim

all three assumptions violate the principles of "good" journalism (which is all but a fond memory, if it every existed, and why I think so many people are taking to the blogs for their information)...this return to criticizing the incumbent (something the previous incumbent saw his fair share of)...may not be welcome among those who want to sleep well at night, but it restores a bit of my faith in the information I glean from the mainstream media.

It's probably much more simple than that though. The White House is getting bad press now because 1) soldiers are being killed daily in Iraq, 2) jobs are not to be found, 3) someone outed a CIA agent, and 4) karma.

Question: why is the media the "enemy" just because they don't support the President 100%...why does anyone other than Bush choose to believe "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" is not a useless two-dimensional cliche in an extremly complex three-dimensional world?

#31 RIP Ford

do the "media" hate Bush that much to see us fail in Iraq and the WoT

Yes.

#30 Colt: Fox, The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, The Washington Times, National Review, etc. Oh, and Little Green Footballs. I'm not saying it's easy. But I was heartened, for instance, to see Christopher Hitchens' article on progress in Iraq printed in the often chic-left Vanity Fair. It would be a disastrous idea to abandon the propaganda fight, I think.

why does anyone other than Bush choose to believe "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" is not a useless two-dimensional cliche in an extremly complex three-dimensional world?

With the World Trade Center still smoldering, it was hardly unreasonable to request that the world make it clear where their loyalties lay?

What's complex about condemning al-Qaeda?

#36 OR

I'm not saying give up. Just that the influence of CNN, NYT, et al, is extremely difficult to counter-balance without WW2-style censorship.

#10 Jon

Canadians won't get respect so long as they think they are doing Americans a favor by sending troops. Maybe Canadians should start thinking about the big picture.

Edward #34:

in the lead up to the war... the media was nearly completely pro-White House

Which planet's media are you talking about, exactly?

OT- Fox News reports
Pentagon officials said Thursday they worry that terrorists are trying to infiltrate the U.S. military and may have done so at the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98943,00.html

Gee, you think so?
Wonder when CNN will pick this up.

OT, sorry, but has anyone else seen this? It's really funny (found on Zioneocon). Priceless photo

in the lead up to the war, which I opposed on legal grounds, NOT because I'm against liberating oppressed people or think we should wait until a mushroom cloud tells us we have an enemy

Classic. Ok, so he hates us, has the ability and will to hurt us, oppresses his people, but it's illegal 'cause the French say so.

I've got so disgusted with Newsweek that I've cancelled my more than 10 year old subscription about three months ago. Probably a year too late.

And I'm not going to renew my even longer Times subscription.

With the World Trade Center still smoldering, it was hardly unreasonable to request that the world make it clear where their loyalties lay?

As the president has finally admitted, Hussein had nothing to do with that.

But more to your point...the world stood with us on 9/12...and they'd still be with us if we hadn't invaded Iraq without addressing their concerns in the process.

What's complex about condemning al-Qaeda?

Show me anywhere in the US press where someone is not condeming Al Qaeda.

#40 Occasional Reader

in the lead up to the war... the media was nearly completely pro-White House

Which planet's media are you talking about, exactly?

I don't recall any US press that criticized the invasion going into it...perhaps you can cite some examples.

#4, RaphDaRussian

I saw that. On the cover it has a picture of Bush on the aircraft carrier with the caption "Mission NOT Accomplished". Unbelievable.

Bush said that major combat operations were declared over, and that it would still be dangerous and very hard work, etc. What do these people expect in a wartime situation?

I also remember that one of GWB's missions in Iraq was regime change. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED you LLL Time Warner weenies.

Yossarian I love it, but it screams photoshop...

#43

I have always been puzzled about this "illegal" war business. Seemsthat, according to the left, the only time we need to follow the letter of the law is when we are dealing with criminal psychopaths (Moussoui) or when the U.S. wants to fight a war (Iraq). The rest of the time, we have emanations and penumbras and follow the ever-changing spirit of a living constitution (e.g. abortion and every other social policy issue in the last 40 years). Can't we simply find a penumbra in the living document of the U.N. charter to justify our war?

#48 billhedrick: Yeah, I figured it was probably a photoshop...oh well.

Newsweek provides a perfect example of Warren’s point, with the cover of their new all quagmire, all the time issue: The Unbuilding of Iraq.

This is just typical accenting the negative and forgetting that until Saddam was removed people died for criticising the government in Iraq while all these journalists have to fear is that their Jayson Blairing might be found out.

#14 Dirk Diggler
LMAO! Those wacky Japanese! They think of EVERYTHING! Oh by the way, Dirk..Um, how exactly did you find this? Did you "google"?? Yer a sick puppy ya know.

2 Canadian Soldiers died in Afghanistan...no US media coverage!

Did you want the headline to read: one-half of Canada's Armed Forces decimated in Kabul attack?

The US is far more appreciative of foreign assistance than their own countries are proud of it. I thank the few Canadiens who realize that they are not French, but part of the English speaking free world. We will continue to mourn and appreciate those who die defending freedom and fighting Islamofacism.

#34 Edward,

why is the media the "enemy" just because they don't support the President 100%

It is not like they are simply disagreeing with the Pres, but the are, for the reasons I cited in my last post, not even close to portraying the actual events in Iraq. Case in point. That reporter staging the children around and on unexploded ordinance. (sorry, can't find the link) Bagdad power is back on, and has been for some time and things are going a lot smoother than reported by the press. At least according to those who are there.

#45 Edward
Ed, can I call you Ed? Fine, Ed, you're a moron. When exactly did the President say that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11?

As the president has finally admitted, Hussein had nothing to do with that.

#45 edward

But more to your point...the world stood with us on 9/12...and they'd still be with us if we hadn't invaded Iraq without addressing their concerns in the process

Would have gotten the UN backing in the second resolution. Unfortunately, THE WORLD, also known as France, threaten a veto.

45 Edward

As the president has finally admitted, Hussein had nothing to do with that.

The quote was made soon after 9/11, and concerned al-Qaeda, and you have trouble with the statement because of Iraq? Er...

But more to your point...the world stood with us on 9/12...and they'd still be with us if we hadn't invaded Iraq without addressing their concerns in the process.

New Zealand pulled out of NATO on 9/12, and that's just one example of the world standing with us.

Show me anywhere in the US press where someone is not condeming Al Qaeda.

Here's a classic example.

#46 Edward:

I don't recall any US press that criticized the invasion going into it...perhaps you can cite some examples.

Well, for instance, there's this small, inconsequential newspaper printed in Manhattan called The New York Times. Perhaps you've heard of it?

eddie

I don't recall any US press that criticized the invasion going into it...perhaps you can cite some examples.

Your moo cow wears army boots and is a drag queen.

New Zealand pulled out of NATO on 9/12

...is this true? I swear I read that in a Steyn piece, but I'm not certain.

My main misgiving being that NZ isn't really in the North Atlantic.

Classic. Ok, so he hates us, has the ability and will to hurt us, oppresses his people, but it's illegal 'cause the French say so.

Forget the French...No source that I have found has proved beyond a doubt that the invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal, but based on the UN charter, which we signed, and based on the Resolution Congress passed, which stated

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to:

Strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts and

Obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and non-compliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(and I'm not convinced he did that), I'm not convinced he didn't break international law.

anyway...that's why I opposed the war.

Why are Newsweek and Time still published? The only time I read them is on airplanes when there's nothing else. Takes me about 10 minutes to whip through an issue (and I read most of their crap in that time). They've been compared (unfavorably) to Tiger Beat and I think that's about right. They'll desecrate any image to sell a few more copies at the check out line. They continue to pound their ideological drum, no matter who is listening. Long live the internet and blogs. Real news sources.

#34 Edward

On the surface, the statement by Bush that "if you're not with us, you're with terrorists" sounds simpleminded. However, in a very complex and 3-dimensional world, it is sometimes best to cut to the chase and make a policy statement that everyone can remember.

The French were "too 3-dimensional" for their own good, and now they're our enemies. It's important that everyone knows what is expected of them. That doesn't mean that people are unaware of complexity.

This is a war that will take decades (sorry, I'm not making this up), and the sooner people understand that we are in terrible danger, the quicker it can end.

Read this month's Atlantic Monthly for a fascinating article on the savage oceans. We have been living in a dream world, thinking it was civilized. But it's not.

#36 Occasional Reader

I'd throw Instapundit on that list. He is one of the people who thoroughly demonstrated during the Iraq war how much of the mainstream media was deliberately deceiving us.

#61 Colt
Was it NATO or ANZUS maybe?

...obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and non-compliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

The French prevented that from occuring (not that there weren't others).

in the lead up to the war, which I opposed on legal grounds ... the media was nearly completely pro-White House

I don't know what "media" you were observing prior to the war, but it was definitely not CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, CBC, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, etc...

All they did for months was repeat "unilaterism" and "going it alone" 24/7.

America went to war, with the help of 29 other countries, despite the media's wishes.

And regarding "legal grounds," have you even read UNSC 1441?

[Link: www.un.org...]
 

#66 reaganite

Possibly, though the US hasn't recognised NZ as a member of ANZUS since '86.

#62 eddie

I'm not convinced he didn't break international law.

Are you "convinced" that Saddam broke "international" law?

#61 Colt, #66 reaganite:

I thought it was ANZUS, but I could be wrong.

Ed--

But more to your point...the world stood with us on 9/12...and they'd still be with us if we hadn't invaded Iraq without addressing their concerns in the process

Huh?? Are you serious?

The "world" had "concerns" that we, the United States, should have addressed before liberating millions of innocent people, and removing the world's most dangerous tyrant?

And what might those "concerns" be? Oh yeah, France, Germany and Russia were "concerned" about losing their shady business deals with Iraq, and then there's the abolishment of the Oil for Food scam. And of course Belgium is just a French poodle. Am I leaving out any "concerns" that the United State failed to address?

#57 Colt

WTF? A Bangkok Post article about the "rush to the World Series"? LOL I don't follow.

still waiting for examples of the US press not condemning Al Qaeda..

#58 Occasional Reader

any links to such in the NYTimes?

#57 Colt

that link points to a Baseball story

#59 rizzo

even my "moo cow" could kick your ass...

Colt, NZ was never in NATO.

#74 Edward

You said:

Show me anywhere in the US press where someone is not condeming Al Qaeda.

Fair point, though, it was the Bangkok Post.

How about this one then?

Hell, one of the reasons I was so for the war, you know, besides the facts that I would rather have our superbly trained military men and women taking it to the terrorists rather than have the terrorists take it to our citizens, was that the UN was so against it. I figure if that decrepit (sp) institution is so against us, then we surely must be doing something right.

#74 eddie

even my "moo cow" could kick your ass...

Please get a UN resolution before proceeding.

#75 reaganite

Ok, musta been ANZUS. Given their role in ANZUS since NZ banned US warships in NZ waters, it was pretty much a technicality I suppose.

Edward, #34, #45

It's not "a return to good journalism," it's spin that gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Look at that picture. It could just be a soldier with dust in his contact lens, could be any number of things, but I guarantee you it will be downloaded again and again in the Muslim world. Newsweek is trying to bring to reality what Osama bin Laden said of the US--it's a paper tiger: kill some of its soldiers, show them suffering, and they'll turn tail and run like Clinton forced them to in Somalia. Newsweek is aiding in that. It's bad for troop morale, it's bad for morale on the home front, and it makes the mullahs very, very happy.

It's not good journalism to just tell one side of the story. Uday and Qusay aren't using their plastic shredder anymore. The mass graves aren't being filled anymore. Schools that used to be used to hold munitions are now used to educate the first generation of boys and GIRLS who will be free of Baathism. 95% of the country is under the control of local councils. The predicted civil war among Shi'ite, Sunni, Kurd, and Chaldean never happened. The vast majority of the Iraqis want us there. Infrastructure that rotted away for decades while who knows where Saddam put billions of dollars in oil for food money is being rebuilt. Iraq and Kuwait are mending their relationship. The vast majority of the news is good, just as the vast majority of the news in Afghanistan is great, but they're both not models of democracy within months after decades of despotic rule, so it's all quagmire and defeat.

I'd like to know when reporters were first asked to check their love of country at the door when reporting a story. Certainly in WWII many brave reporters covered the story without talking about what a quagmire we were in, that it took us 4 years to win the war. That's why the centrist Fox News looks right wing compared with the rest of the media--it's not that its reporters are conservative, they're just proud Americans.

Also, President Bush has no way of knowing whether Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Certainly Saddam had a mural done of him standing in front of the burning WTC. Certainly Iraq had set up a training ground with an actual airplane, its sole purpose being to teach people how to hijack planes. Certainly Iraqi intelligence had some dealings both with the 1993 and 2001 WTC conspirators. Did Iraq order it done? No, probably not. But it's waaay too premature to say they had NOTHING to do with it.

FYI -- New Zealand has never been a member of NATO. They left ANZUS years ago.

#81 yeti

Ok, my bad :-)

#77 RWC,
That's exactly the way I feel.

In the same way, I hope that GWB never wins a Nobel Peace Prize.

I hate to say it b/c you all are doing it to yourselves, but why bother with Fast Eddie?

He's being just disagreeable enough to stir the pot, but not going so far as to be an outright troll. however, he's not backing down or reconsidering his positions one iota. He's the classic "stonedeaf" poster who'll argue for hours only to never concede anything and never recognize the weaknesses in his own position.

In fact, I'd bet that "Edward" is one of our attention-starved trolls just aching for the posts that his outright trolldom has made disappear.

Really, you're not debating with ed, you're just feeding his need for attention (and watering down what might otherwise be interesting threads).

/rant

ah Colt...you very funny man(?)...very, very funny

let me be more precise...

show me one article in the US press that addresses Al Qaeda that implies in anyway whatsoever that they support Al Qaeda...

#76 Colt

Okay, I get it, baseball is your FTMNBN.

#84 hobgoblin

You're right. I'll stop talking to him now.

I think the influence of the major media is largely exaggerated. E.g. Arafat. Our media outlets devoted much time to legitimizing and glamorizing this monster, but 95% of Americans say that they don't trust him. Supposedly 18% of Americans are hardcore anti-Semites.

Edward,
You seem to be making... sweeping generalizations? Err... well, they are not true to begin with.
1. Bush finally admitting that Saddam was not behind 9/11. He never said that it was the fact, but who cares about this particular terrorist act. We knew very well Saddam is supporting terrorists worldwide.

2."The world" didn't necessarily stand with us 9/12. Many, esp. in the Arab world, celebrated. Others were happy to see Americans suffer, but didn't express their joy in an outward manner. You should have visited some Russian chatrooms that day.

3.As far as US press not condemning Al Qauida, 9/12 you heard a lot of voices telling us that we need to "understand" which implies that this particular terrorist act was justifiable.

4.A wave of attacks on the Coalition forces seems to be receding. The economy has nothing to do with the war... err... may be. There is usually an economic boom following the war. It has nothing to do with the policy.

I have no idea what you mean by karma.

I told you yesterday, that you need to lock yourself up in the library for a while and come back when you are ready for a discussion. Sorry if I come out bitchy...

Iam losing all hope for the future of our country.Mainstream media "stories"like this only serve to reinforce my cynicism.For the past year I have been stockpiling bullets,beans and gold bullion.I believe it is the only prudent course of action.
Praying for the dawn in Denver.
Anyone else out there feel like I do?

#74 Edward:

still waiting for examples of the US press not condemning Al Qaeda..

You just moved the goalpost, Edward. Your original statement back in #34 referred to "the war", meaning the IRAQ war. Now you've switched to Al Qaeda. No, I can't find you NYT quotes supporting Al Qaeda, but I never claimed I could. The NYT editorial position, however, on balance opposed the Iraq war. I know this because I subscribe to the paper and read it every day. Now, I could go to NYT online, use "Iraq War" as a search term, and spend the next couple of hours sifting through the 2,000 or so hits to find the editorial pieces that support my position. But I'm unwilling to do that. If you truly haven't heard by now that the NYT opposed the Iraq war, please go do your own homework.

#79 Colt

Ok, musta been ANZUS. Given their role in ANZUS since NZ banned US warships in NZ waters,

It wasn't US warships, it was US nuclear powered and carrying nukes ships that were banned.

oh, and ed, before you FOAD,

enjoy your circumcision

As the president has finally admitted, Hussein had nothing to do with that.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the Senate
October 10, 2002

[Link: clinton.senate.gov...]

---

"Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region."

Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the Senate
October 9, 2002

[Link: www.johnkerry.com...]

---

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

President Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

[Link: www.fas.org...]

---

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

President Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

[Link: www.fas.org...]

---

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

[Link: www.cnn.com...]
 

Edward,
btw on the basis of which law did you oppose the war?

#45 - Um, Edward, are you serious? Do you really believe the "world" stood with us on 9/12? As soon as Bush said, you are for us, or for terror (a demonstrably true statement, by the way), the poodles and weasels began running away.

Or perhaps you are among those who equate French crocodile tears and Arab dancing in the streets of Ramallah with support for America's fight against the forces of oppression and reaction?

And while we are at this, exactly what were the "concerns" that the "world" had that we failed to address? Was it the concern that we were going to make Iraq a colony - you know, like the Germans had in Africa, the French in Algeria, the Brits in India, etc etc? Or was it the concern that stopping Saddam's reign of terror might lead to the liberalization of the Arab world (oh, the humanity!) Or was it the concern that attacking Iraq would keep Saddam from funding Hamas and the PA and IJ, so that fewer JOOOS would be murdered? Or was it the concern that the cozy economic relationships between Iraq and high level French, Russian, and German officials, might be exposed?

Explain to me why we should care what the "world" thinks? You know, the "world" that has made the UN an anti-semetic cesspool? The "world" that silently tolerated the genocide in Rwanda and the Balkans? The "world" that builds nothing, but demands that the US give its wealth to unelected oligarchs? The "world" that funds and honors the child-molesting Arafish? The "world" that fears freedom, and loathes individual rights?

Outside of the Aussies, and maybe the Poles, the "world's" opinion on matters of freedom and principle is hardly worth a rat's a**.

#91 reaganite

I had thought it was all US warships, in case some of them were nuclear-powered and/or armed.

hobgoblin,

to paraphrase Morrisey, I don't mind if you ignore me...

however I do mind being being misrepresented

he's not backing down or reconsidering his positions one iota

that's not true...on several occassion on other postings I admitted where I'm wrong...and will continue to do so...I don't come to sites like this thinking I have nothing to learn...I post my position and then defend it...when the lightbulb goes off over my head I admit it.

and the obsession with "trolls" on this site is nearly psychopathic...if you disagree so do without the ad hominem...it helps me see your point.

#87 Colt

Sorry to be a nag, Colt (ha)

Just frustrating is all.

#94 veebee

see # 62

the world stood with us on 9/12...and they'd still be with us if we hadn't invaded Iraq without addressing their concerns in the process

In the astute words of James Taranto, "If the world only loves Americans when we are dying, they can go to hell."
 

Is this supposed to be news?

Why isn't it labeled opinion?

Oh yeah. never mind. THAT liberal media

David

90 Occasional Reader

You just moved the goalpost, Edward. Your original statement back in #34 referred to "the war", meaning the IRAQ war.

I was following up to

#37

With the World Trade Center still smoldering, it was hardly unreasonable to request that the world make it clear where their loyalties lay?

What's complex about condemning al-Qaeda?

sorry about the confusion

Reaganite:

It turned out to be all US warships because the US refused to tell NZ which carried nukes and which didn't. "I can neither confirm nor deny..."

#96 Colt
It worked out that way in the end, the US never says if nukes are on board, so by default it worked out that way. It wasn't that way in the original ban.

#97 Edward

Here is the link you were begging for.

#103 yeti
Jinx! You owe me a beer!

hey ed, try this one then:

Keats and Yeats are on my side
while Will, the love of Wilde is on yours
(hope you caught that)

and stop derailing threads with your sophomoric and petty disagreements

#97 eddie

and the obsession with "trolls" on this site is nearly psychopathic

Trying not waste time on idiotarians.

Do not provide financial aid to the enemy, kill them financially! Cancel your Time, Newsweek and other leftist subscriptions and get National Review and the like instead. Cancel your newspaper subscription (unless it is the WSJ, NY Post or the Wash Times or others of a similar position); I cancelled my 10-year-old subscription to the Atlanta Urinal And Constipation and they have been throwing all kinds of great rates at me to get me to re-subscribe "Pay for just Sunday and we'll give you the rest of the week FREE!"; I told them to pound sand, I ain't payin' for their leftist, bigoted rag. I avoid anything that CNN has any involvement with, even to the point of boycotting the Ted's Montana Grille right up the street.

We CAN do something!

Fight The Power Of The Leftwing Press!

Reaganite:

Shi'ite happens.

#100 William:

With respect to Taranto, I think the world does not only love Americans when we are dying. The world also loves Americans when they are dying.

#45 Edward

I'll do ya one better...how about Sen Pat Murray lauding Bin Ladin for building roads and schools in Afghanistan...something he never did by the way.

And I'll turn the question around. You show me where anyone at CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC is criticizing the AQ.

And again. Bush never said Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 so there's no admission to anything. He's repeating what he's always said. Get a clue.

The world stood with us on 9/12 and then turned their back on 9/13. One day does not an ally make. We know who our friends are.

Just a quick question since we were on the media. Has anyone here ever been, or known anyone who has been called up for a zogby, cnn, etc... poll? Just wondering, because with all the polls taken I have not been or known anyone who has been contacted.

#106 reaganite: you can find beer recommendations over on the Thai SAMs thread... but what am I talking about, you're a hopeless case!

#111 BH: well put.

#109 clutch

Fight The Power Of The Leftwing Press!

Laugh at them!

#113 NOPE, never.

I feel the same as MCWarrior. I really can't even read LGF that much anymore because it just makes my blood boil knowing what really is going on. I feel we are all just living in a period before some devestating event, whistling past the graveyard you might say. CIA leak-gate, Rush Limbaugh, Arnold, the 10 Dem "presidential candidates", Iraq is Vietnam, blah blah blah. If the American public knew half the stuff here or any other good blog writes it would be enough to make their head spin. We just have to put our faith in the American people that they know when to call bullshit. November 2004 will be the most important election since the civil war.

107

and stop derailing threads with your sophomoric and petty disagreements

you mean like

Keats and Yeats are on my side
while Will, the love of Wilde is on yours
(hope you caught that)

??

my original post is entirely on topic...I'm happy to return to your critique of that.

#10 Jon

Thank your PM for pissing away any goodwill left.
If you think this is an just an American War, take your troops and go home.

Yep, it's that simple.

#111 BH

The world elite class is dominated by the LLL mentality. LLLs fetishize victimhood. In victimhood os the false power of the Leftist. Thus the world hates any display of true power (physical domination) b/c it highlights the fundamental flaw of Leftist "victim-philia," that the victim has no power but what the victimizer allows it. So yes, the world loves America when Americans die, but because for that brief black moment, we were victims. Of course the friendship ends when we get up off the ground and kick some ass, b/c we are showing true power.

#114 Occasional Reader

but what am I talking about

With your taste in beer, what are you talking about! ;-Þ I told you in DC, I'm a lager lout!

Edward, dear

The SC resolution, to which you seem to be referring authorized the use of force. So did the Congress.

You are the last person complain about the "troll obsession.

#112 Rex

And again. Bush never said Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 so there's no admission to anything. He's repeating what he's always said. Get a clue.

Did you see Cheney on Meet the Press?

OK, I agree, Bush never said it...he implied it again and again, but he never said it...

He did say "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11th" after a poll was published that revealed 69% of Americans thought Hussein was involved in the attacks...

So he never said it, and he wasn't admitting anything...fine, I'll retract...that just leaves one annoying little question though:

How did 69% of Americans come to that conclusion?

Oh, perhaps the leftwing media, in its constant attempt to smear Bush, led them to believe it?

Edward...

you are simply stupid.

#113 Right wing conspirator

I'm a registered voter and I've never been called by a pollster. Although, I don't belong to either party (or any of the little ones, either), so I don't know if that has something to do with it.

Oh no, Edward, you are not a Morrisey fan! It's just too good to be true!

Edward is a lot like VFI. Ignore him/her. It's clear he/she just wants to argue and have us all say "Yes, Edward, you are right!"

So GAZE . . .

I want to hear more about the media. What can we do to get it providing us with useful information? Oddly enough, I thought the NY Times was terrific right after 9-11. It then seemed to morph into a strange caricature of an ignoramus with a deathwish. But at first it was very informative.

I would like to see some articles somewhere about what to do about the spread of Islam in the U.S. While driving in a rural area of northern Indiana, I came across a mosque with an elaborate onion-dome roof. Was it an ordinary kind of religious structure (like a rural church, for example)? Or was it a center for spreading the Wahabi sickness in the rural Midwest? Newspapers and magazines . . . what's going on, and what should we do about it?

veebee...you're pushing ad hominem to new depths...keep up the sloppy work

ploome,

specifics please... WHY am I simply stupid?

The article nailed it:

Our media has joined the enemy.

They can't wait to see America lose.

Just a note on how things are really going:

Navy is having to restrict reenlistments. Sailors are giving the choice of changing to understrength specialities or departing the service. The problem is to many people want to stay in.

101st recently had a reenlistment in Iraq - as I recall, over 100 soldiers reenlisted at the same time.

The Army is currently meeting recruitment goals - the NG and Reserves are not however.

Bottom line - the Army is doing fine, staying the course and will accomplish their mission. Although, a couple more divisions on the roles would help.

Regards,
Mike

#123 eddie

How did 69% of Americans come to that conclusion?

Newspaper editors, like public officials, often have to ask themselves a question that is critical to the health of the American democracy: Do you want to perpetuate dangerous misconceptions, or help the public learn the truth? Papers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and The Dallas Morning News that did run the Bush admission on the front page must be lauded for acknowledging that when 69% of Americans believe an extraordinary falsehood that helped lead to a (still-ongoing) war, it is their responsibility to correct it.

[Link: www.mediainfo.com...]

Edward is a lot like VFI. Ignore him/her. It's clear he/she just wants to argue and have us all say "Yes, Edward, you are right!"

So GAZE . . .

I'm guessing you're "gazing" and won't respond, but I'm still curious

do any posters who dissent stay on this site very long? or is this simply a mutual appreciation sort of place?

I've actually enjoyed a few of the more carefully considered responses here and think in general this blog has a higher than average IQ per capita, but if the only role waiting for me is to be ignored, just say so and I'll leave...

# 119 Apache

I don't think that you will find too many Canadians that feel the Afghan war is unjust.

In fact...my Prime Minister (who I can't wait to see retire already) said that these deaths represent the high price of defending Canadian values (fair enough I think).

My only beefs with the matter are:

1) MOST US media not reporting this

2) Americans forgetting, or not even knowing that any Canadian sacrifice has been made in defending our shared values...as they continue to bash Canada

I think that #1 leads to #2

So, although I consider myself to be right wing at the moment and I support most of what the US is foing now. I feel it is my duty as a Canadian to speak up in communities such as LGF and remind people that despite out passive, liberal apathetic PM...Canadians are still making contributions and sacrifice.

"Please respond to me, if only to make an insult more biting and disdainful! Please respond to me! PLEASE!!!"

"Please respond to me, if only to make an insult more biting and disdainful! Please respond to me! PLEASE!!!"

all I need to know Hobgoblin...

Edward, please go away. You like to argue for the sake of arguing. LGF is a wonderful site for the exchange of ideas (often in the form of rants, it's true).

But people who just like to argue for the game of arguing are truly not welcome.

We view LGF as a place where we can get information that is ignored or distorted by media re the War on Terror, the War on Islamofacism, the dangers of the spread of WMD, and the spread of antisemitism. If you think that these are not issues, then you will have to prove it with facts, not by telling us how close-minded we are.

Edward,
if you don't mind me saying that, and normally you'd pay $100/hour for such services, but you are here because you are looking for abuse. So don't complain about ad homs too much. More importantly, considering that you don't want to read any of recommended books and sites, what exactly are we supposed to talk about?

#133 jon

as they continue to bash Canada

Only bashing Canada's government.

do any posters who dissent stay on this site very long? or is this simply a mutual appreciation sort of place?

its not that you dissent.

its the way your 'mind' works...for example

OK, I agree, Bush never said it...he implied it again and again, but he never said it...

He did say "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11th" after a poll was published that revealed 69% of Americans thought Hussein was involved in the attacks...

So he never said it, and he wasn't admitting anything...fine, I'll retract...that just leaves one annoying little question though:

How did 69% of Americans come to that conclusion?

Oh, perhaps the leftwing media, in its constant attempt to smear Bush, led them to believe it?
...

ya know, just plain stupid...

as you instinctively realize, the IQ on this site is considerable...

trust us...you are stupid

...wait...

maybe he isnt stupid...

he's a schmuck!

#123 Edward:

The poll question to which you refer was phrased as, IIRC: "Do you believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?"

What's your answer to that question, Ed? Mine is, "maybe". Given that there's evidence that Saddam was involved in the '93 WTC attack; that he did explore and possibly cultivate links with AQ throughout the 90s (yes, Ed, he did); and that the '93 attackers were quite clearly linked to the 2001 attackers; I would have a lot of trouble answering that question with a flat "no". 69% of my compatriots apparently feel the same way about Saddam's possible links, or more strongly. And yet apparently this just proves we've all been duped by GW Bush's Jedi mind trick, according to you.

GWB did not "imply" again and again that Saddam did it. What he did say, again and again, was that our perception of threat changed on 9/11, and that this affects how we must look at Saddam. I'm sorry you don't understand the distinction. It's really not that difficult. Even that drunken frat boy... er, Sith Lord... ah, whatever he is, George W. Bush, even HE understands it.

#135 eddie

all I need to know Hobgoblin...

about moo cows, army boots, drag queens and idiotarianism.

But more to your point...the world stood with us on 9/12...and they'd still be with us if we hadn't invaded Iraq without addressing their concerns in the process.

No, no, no.

The world called in on 9/11 to say one of several things:

Syria, Iran etc. "We didn't do it (Don't nuke us)

France, Germany etc. "we feel your pain. Sorry."

Iraq "You deserved it."

No one other than Israel, england, spain, poland and a few african tribesmen that sent cows to us, stood by us.

piglet:

and a few african tribesmen that sent cows to us

I remember that. I'd be in favor of showering aid, or green cards, or Starbucks franchises, or whatever, on those folks. It was a great gesture.

I tink I hwurt widdle eddie's feewings...

AWWW

Better call the [Link: WWWAAAHHHmbulance...]

(An ad hominem attack is a debate technique used to prove someone is wrong by proving they're a bad person. An insult on the other hand has no ulterior motive and is just used to insult someone.)

#144 OR

That was one of the most genuine and kind-hearted response I saw from anywhere in the world. A better proposal to me is just to never forget who our friends in sub-Saharan Africa are, b/c there's gonna be some terrible upheaval there in the near future.

Edward,

Again, sorry if I'm too bitchy. But really, what do you thikn? Do you think you are telling us something we don't already know. There are many responses on this site to views like yours. And it doesn't even seem like you are listening or, if you simply like to argue for argument's sake, have your ammunition ready. And what book on Kyrgyz history do you recommend?

I wish you an improvement.

#133 jon

I agree with rizzo. Its not the Canadians so much as the Canadian government. The Americans do appreciate what the Canadian forces are doing for us, its just the sh*t we here coming from people like MP Carolyn Parish that irks us. She lets her military go to the dumps and then states that she hates us bastard Americans. Well, it is us bastard Americans that will be saving her Socialist a**. Just a bit of an explanation, and I am pretty sure you can't stand her also so that is not directed at you at all. It's just that Americans, for all we provide to everyone in the world, don't really feel appreciated at the moment.

#144

That _was_ very cool. If I recall, one of the tribesmen said something to the effect of "If this Osama bin Laden ever came here, we would surely kill him."

The six (?) cows they brought to the embassy were a HUGE donation, considering their humble lives. If I knew who they were, I'd happily write 'em a check in gratitude.

Iraq and the World Trade Center

[Link: www.fas.org...]

Ramzi Yousef is and who his "friends" are, because if he is not just a bomber-for-hire, or an Islamic militant loosely connected to other Muslim fundamentalists, Yousef's "friends" could still prove very dangerous to the United States. It is of considerable interest, therefore, that a very persuasive case can be made that Ramzi Yousef is an Iraqi intelligence agent,

it is possible to connect Iraq and the attempted desruction of the WTC

#149 Palandine

Ummm, uhhh. I know who that was who sent them American but there is a problem with the banking system in their country. If you just want to send cash, I can give you the address. That goes for everyone else as well. Come on all, lets pitch in.

damn Preview is my friend. But typing in the dark isn't. Hopefully you all got the jist of my last post.

** clap clap** Ahhh. Now thats better.

#150 ploome

it is possible to connect Iraq and the attempted desruction of the WTC

Please also read my previous post.

Right wing conspirator (AKA Njimbe Mbungulange)

LOL

OT just got this from a friend:

The former Romanian KGB who said that Arafat is gay, now says Russia hid Saddam's WMD

The article is in Front Page Magazine and Washington Times (don't have a link for the latter)

Every day, the media continues it's never-ending campaign to make every military victory a quagmire, every soldier's death a national tragedy, every economic drop a depression, and every complaint from the anti-US crowd a political failure.

And every day, I just roll my eyes in disgust, chalk it up to journalistic politics, and remind myself that these are the same people who would be making minimum wage at McDonald's in a just world.

Right Wing Conspirator: Perhaps you could help a distinguished Nigerian friend of mine recover millions from a foreign bank account, too?

The Bush administration must be looking forward to a pleasant future in which it can pursue a perpetual war on terror without worrying about the pesky concerns of an informed populace.

So was Bush joking when he said it'd be easier to be a dictator, or not?

#158 zipperhead

GAZE

reaganite

It's just fast eddie venting some spleen

#158 zipperhead

The Bush administration must be looking forward to a pleasant future in which it can pursue a perpetual war on terror without worrying about the pesky concerns of an informed populace.

Way too many idiotarian like yourself for that to happen.

zipperhead--

The AshKKKroftian Stormtroopers have already been dispatched to "disappear" you. Don't you hear their jackboots on the stairs? RUN! GET OUT, while there's still time!!!

#149 Palandine

I found it!!!

And Osama bin Laden became a household word. People who are unpopular in the village are now known simply as Osamas.

"We don't have anyone as cruel as him," said James Ngodia, 44. "This man is a world enemy. If he comes to Maasailand, we will surely kill him with our spears and arrows."

#160 hobgoblin

It's just fast eddie venting some spleen

A troll is a troll is a troll...

zipperhead: An IBM term for a person with a closed mind.

#157 Occasional Reader

Sure, I would be glad to help out your Nigerian friend. But in the interest of trust and fairness I say that we both put up equal amounts and we send them to the generous individuals who had sent the cows. Like I said, I have his address so we can both send them at the same time.

rizzo...

I am sorry but I seem to be too tired to give the article you link to in the above post my whole attention.

the situation is, as I see it...all these terrorist and terrorist enabling states are connected.

the overriding bond is Islam, dawah and jihad.

The names and faces of people and groups change with dizzying frequency, and as far as I can see, they use these (non existant) differences to confuse us.

let allan figure them out

:-P

#156 TargetPractice

And every day, I just roll my eyes in disgust, chalk it up to journalistic politics, and remind myself that these are the same people who would be making minimum wage at McDonald's in a just world.

That's assuming they could handle something as complex as a deep fryer. Without the McJobs programs that exist in many major (and especially leftwing) media outlets, most of these "journalists" would be in jail or otherwise institutionalized. Which is probably where they belong anyway.
Long Live the Perpetual War on Terrorism!

164 reaganite

my point was that even the GAZE was too generous

But at least we won't have "Edward" to kick around any more!

#167 ploome

That post says that the media is also responsible for eddie's caim that "67%" of the populace believes:

Newspaper editors, like public officials, often have to ask themselves a question that is critical to the health of the American democracy: Do you want to perpetuate dangerous misconceptions, or help the public learn the truth? Papers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and The Dallas Morning News that did run the Bush admission on the front page must be lauded for acknowledging that when 69% of Americans believe an extraordinary falsehood that helped lead to a (still-ongoing) war, it is their responsibility to correct it.

[Link: www.mediainfo...]

#169 hobgoblin

But at least we won't have "Edward" to kick around any more!

I wish, he'll be back just like VFI, Gordon, and Ahem. Charles has so much tolerance.

Gaze all you want. Don't bother to answer the question. What was that about closed minds?

C'mon reaganite, I thought you at least would recognize the Nixon quote...

of course he'll be back, in some mutated form or another

Speaking of which...

#173 hobgoblin

C'mon reaganite, I thought you at least would recognize the Nixon quote...

My bad, I've had my hands full this week, we have a MAJCOM inspection starting monday, it's been a long week so far!

#172 zipperhead

So was Bush joking when he said it'd be easier to be a dictator, or not?

Source please?

thanks, reaganite.

I think it's time I created a macro to insert the auto-GAZE reply.

#177 steve miller

I think it's time I created a macro to insert the auto-GAZE reply.

When you do, send it to me! I have a few smart keys left that I'd love to use.

Mired in the Quag

I have not read the Time and Newsweek articles. Saw them on the newsstand. Don't know if the word "quagmire" was actually used. But, anyway, I'm going to start my own little effort to devalue the word by using it even more inappropriately than it already is. A few examples:

Everyday chores:
"The line at the grocery store was a big quagmire. Took me 10 minutes to check out!"

Watching sports with friends:
"OK, the Jets are 4th and 2. I'd say it's a complete quagmire and Testaverde has no exit strategy!"

Call-in sports show after the game: "The Jets' entire season is now an absolute quagmire and Edwards has no exit strategy!"

Workplace chatter:
"Thank God it's Friday. This week was a major quagmire!"

Discussing culture and arts:
"Dude, P. Diddy's last album is totally a quagmire!"

I'm sorry I don't have the link on this computer, but there is a fantastic set of web pages out there that show the front pages of more than 250 newspapers around the world on 9/11, every single one showing the towers at some point in their death throes---every single paper, including the Arab dailies who were genuinely mortified at the size of the attack if nothing else. Every single paper, except one: Le Monde, the leading French daily, didn't have a single word about the event on its main page. The whole world, not even the whole Western world, was not with us on 9/12. Sorry I don't have the link, but if someone else does, please post it.

Eddie, if you are still out there, I would like to politely point out that you should look for a better reason than the UN to oppose the war.

1. There were 18 SC resolutions being ignored by Saddam, with no repercussions in sight. (That hardly creates any deterence for the rest of the Arab world.)

2. They put Syria in charge of the security council. (Totally blows all credibility in my book)

3. They put Libya in charge of human rights. (ditto)

4. France and Russia who put up the biggest opposition not only had disgusting sweetheart deals with Saddam for oil, (probably illegal under the sanctions), they were also supplying him with weapons and intelligence right up to the last minutes before the attack. France even gave him a nuclear reactor that was thankfully destroyed by Israel.

Schroeder won the German election on an anti-American agenda. (too bad he didn't have any plans for their economy) What else could he do?

5. Membership in the UN does not supercede a nations right to defend itself.

I would also like to point out, that lack of evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 or had WMD, is not evidence that he wasn't or didn't. I personally would rather we went to war and found nothing, than not go to war and find the WMD's as they are used on us.

Brownfinger,

I think it's in Edward's best interest to stop coming here. I hope he doesn't commit suicide, not right before his wedding. May be a couple of years if he's still alive, and when he read everything, or at least most of what was suggested, and when he went through therapy he will be ready for a serious discussion. I doubt his girlfriend will be around.

#180 longtime lurker

This?

[Link: www.september11news.com...]

I know I'm late in this discussion, but did anyone else see the carton in the most recent issue of National Review (paper version), showing Bush as the unhappy driver of a station wagon with a bunch of screaming children in the back seat, shouting, "Are we there yet!"

#183

JD, it's the same content, but a different format. On the page I saved on my work computer, you can actually read the text on the page. Interesting, though, that's the same issue of Le Monde, but this one has a picture of the WTC, the one showed in the work link has no mention of the event. Tampering? Local vs. international editions? I'll have to check this out.

#184

I had a cartoon with Rumsfeld driving the car with the "are we there yet" kids dating from the second week of the hostilities.

[Link: quote.wikipedia.org...]The quote (ha ha, funny)

170 rizzo

I dont think it a falsehood..

:-)

I'm jumping down, I'll go back and read the comments.
I suggest we have one of our brilliant webloggers fisk the hell out of that article and then publish it where hundreds of thousands can read it. Let's show the authors of this mess for the ugly liars they really are.
Some high profile exposure would be good for them and their inflated egos.

#163 Tasty Beverage (and Paladine):
I missed that when it happened. What a lovely gesture, and what a moving article.

Abdullah Edward. Marhaba. Just now got word back from Al Hamdulila about your nomination for the Min-kota power trolling award. He regrets to inform you that, while you and your team started strong, you quickly ran out of gas. The bit about the Kyrgyzian girlfriend did show a bit of originality and you should have played it for all it was worth. After all, with Al Gore claiming to have been the inspiration for "Love Story"you could have probably morphed an extra couple of points out of that slant. As for the rest of it, well it appears that falling on your head somewhere along the line has not impaired your keyboarding as much as your judgement. Al says to remind you that tomorrow's Friday and that you should charge your batteries up real good for another weeks worth of trolling.

That David Warren essay trips over its own logic.

"There was no way forward without invading Iraq. But it remains to be seen whether even invading Iraq was a way forward." is so brilliant it makes no sense.

I agree that the military must change how it conducts operations against terrorists and their supporters. I also agree terrorists will seek ever more lethal weapons and more surreptitious means of delivering them.

Then why does he gives Bush a pass on Iraq? After likening Bush to the "only adult" in the world community and suggesting that the military limit press access to more easily propogandize the war he goes on to note:

"...it is counter-productive to build up forces in any one location. Since this is necessary to full-scale invasions, full-scale invasions have to go."

You know, some of those people characterized as dupes to the commies in ANSWER had already come to that conclusion and wondered why the Bush administration couldn't figure this out before they wasted US lives, treasure and credibility on what has turned out to be an incredibly misbegotten venture.

$87 billion would buy an awful lot of port security, airline security, border security, directly benefitting Americans, including Americans who don't work for Halliburton.

I remember how the press behaved during the latter years of Vietnam. They did everything they could to paint an unflattering picture of US involvement there. Part of the post-war recriminations was how the media "lost the war" for us.

Over time, however, the media was able to paint a flattering picture of their behavior. "It wasn't our fault," they cooed. "There was no coherent strategy." Or "Our military was drugged out and not up to the task." Or "It was just not the right war." Etc., etc.

If you repeat a lie often enough, over time it becomes the truth. Thus, the media's performance during Vietnam was nothing if not noble.

So, here we are at war again, and guess what? The media have decided this war isn't winnable. (personally, I think a lot has to do with the fact that they are so collectively anti-Bush they can't see straight). But thanks to alternative news sources, this time we can see through them.

I think it's time we re-opened the history books on the media's effect on the nation during Vietnam. I think we'll find it wasn't so noble. Just as then, these f**ckers have set themselves up as the arbiters of "what's best for America."

I also think that, if they really believe they have a free pass to shape public opinion as they see fit, then they're acting like a fourth branch of government. So, like the Congress, presidency , and judiciary provide a series check and balances on each other, we need to implement some checks and balances on the press. After all, the First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to shout "fire" in a theater.

Do I seriously think any meaningful legislation will come of this? Heck, no. But if we start talking about it loudly, force some kind of debate, maybe we can grab the media's attention enough to make them realize that Joe and Mary Public are seeing through them and are royally pissed.

You know, some of those people characterized as dupes to the commies in ANSWER had already come to that conclusion and wondered why the Bush administration couldn't figure this out before they wasted US lives, treasure and credibility on what has turned out to be an incredibly misbegotten venture.

Huh, "misbegotten venture"?

In 4 months, the Allies have created a new Iraqi Army of 56,000 soldiers, who help provide security to their country. Over 40,000 Iraqi police are conducting joint patrols with Allied forces.

It took 14 months to establish a police force in post-war Germany, and 10 years to begin training a new German Army.

In 4 months, 5,000 new Iraqi businesses have opened. An independent Iraqi Central Bank was established and a new currency announced in just two months -- accomplishments that took 3 years in post-war Germany.

In 4 months, an Iraqi Governing Council has been formed and has appointed a cabinet of ministers -- something that took 14 months in post-war Germany.

In 4 months, municipal councils have been formed in major cities, most towns and villages, and are making decisions about local matters -- something that took eight months in post-war Germany.

In 4 months, Iraq has over 150 newspapers, and is the only country in the Mideast with a free press (except Israel).

Irregular fighters?  Yep, had them in post-war Germany.  Saboteurs blowing up the country's infrastructure?  Yep, had them in post-war Germany.  Assasinations and murdering of "collaborators"?  Yep, had them in post-war Germany.  Read more here.

$87 billion would buy an awful lot of port security, airline security, border security, directly benefitting Americans, including Americans who don't work for Halliburton.

I wish someone would have spent $87 billion addressing the growing Muslim threat before September 11th -- an attack on 60,000 Americans that killed 3,000, and cost the country 2 trillion (with a T) dollars.

Do you also think Germany and Japan should have been abandoned after the war? Would leaving those countries in chaos and ruin have provided more security for Americans in the long run, and saved Americans more money in the long run?

Also, read the comments in post #93, is their agenda to benefit Halliburton?

We had 8 yrs of that bastard Clinton and his scummy wife and tong of friends because the c*cks**king media gave him a pass on everything.They never covered him at all. Now it is is 2003-04 and they'll do the same thing with catsup boy or li'l general, or Howard the Dean.
Now they are electing a new governor for california.These fks will back Davis' refusal to leave office until all court challenges are finished and it will be just like the judges Bush wanted to appoint.NO way, blocked...Just watch. If Schwarzenegger wins, he can forget taking office and the media will ignore the whole thing. Remember the election results have to be certified and that takes a month.Then it will be another month for this court hearing and then there are this and that challenges.
Well, my TV is OFF as far as news is concerned and I know exactly where New*WEAK is coming from.
Eff the L.A.Times too...rag, bird-cage liner. Hey advertisers in the Times and On the TV news-I'm not watching and I am not buying.Those soldiers in Iraq are so brave. If they had been gassed or germed, the media would say "murder", "quagmire", "La Brea Tar Pits" and War crimes for Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld, not Saddam. No one was killed by germs, gas or radiation,and it is like vindictive behavior in response from the media. Quagmire, quicksand, Dis-array anything to tear down these valiant efforts.

#180 I think it's on Glenn Beck's website.. glennbeck.com

#192, Ol Southern Boy. You got that right. 4th Estate, 5th column. The net is driving them batshit.

Also, on the reality in Iraq not covered by the media, comes this report from the US National Democratic Institute, which sent an assessment mission to Iraq this summer.  NDI's chairman is Madeleine Albright (President Clinton's Secretary of State) and its advisory committee includes Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Missouri).

Les Campbell, from the NDI Advance Delegation, writes from Baghdad on June 11, 2003:

"After three days in Baghdad it is already clear that NDI will find fertile ground for democracy promotion initiatives on a scale not seen since the heady days of the fall of the Berlin wall."

 
The findings of the NDI report itself are also intriguing, some excerpts:

NDI's overwhelming finding -- in the north, south, Baghdad, and among secular, religious, Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups in both urban and rural areas -- is a grateful welcoming of the demise of Saddam's regime and a sense that this is a pivotal moment in Iraq's history.  A leading member of a newly formed umbrella movement, The Iraqi Coalition for Democracy, put it this way, "We already see the positive results the Americans have brought -- we are free to talk to you, to organize a movement and party, free to meet and demonstrate and all of this was made possible by the Americans."

Despite all of the obstacles, virtually every individual and group NDI met with in southern Iraq perceived this as a time of opportunity.

There is clear evidence of a developing economy, relative security and prosperity, and an active civil society and political culture.

Local municipal councils are active and appear to be working.  Erbil and Suleimaniya have elected councils, which meet in public on a regular basis and hold "town hall" meetings.  New city elections may be held in February 2004...

Iraqi citizens in the south demonstrated a hunger for information and a desire to learn about the functioning of democracy.

Source:
NDI Assessment Mission to Iraq
June 23 to July 6, 2003
[Link: www.ndi.org...]
 

Yeti- Newsweak equals Tiger Beat:LOLOLOLOL made my day Hahaha

For what seemed like about ten minutes after 9/11, the press actually seemed as though it was going to channel the spirits of the WWII-era greats like Ed Murrow and Ernie Pyle...but I remember telling my wife "this isn't going to last. Give them six months, and they'll be in full Fifth Column mode".

As it turned out, it didn't take anywhere near that long. While the WTC rubble still smoldered, the press began to burble and coo with admiration about "the burgeoning peace movement" flowering all around them to oppose any military response to the attacks - this at a time months before anyone started talking about Iraq as the next campaign in the war. And ever since, they've been working like a swarm of termites, slowly but inexorably eating away at our nation's resolve.

As far as I'm concerned, Warren is right on the money - the media's not "antiwar", they're just on the other side.

Misinformation + Misperceptions = Propaganda

Inaccurate Media Coverage Led to High Public Support for War

link

A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a new study released Thursday, and those misperceptions contributed to much of the popular support for the war.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

-->U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;

-->There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists; and

-->People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

These were not small-sample polls either. PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.

The media was Bush's best friend going into the war.

The media was Bush's best friend going into the war.

Perhaps many Americans were convinced based upon the statements many in post #93.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

1. U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;

This is an absurd premise right from the start -- the reason we went to war, before US forces were in Iraq, was because US forces found WMD in Iraq???

2. There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists; and

No one ever stated this, but there is evidence Saddam had ties to terrorists, and Al Qaeda specifically. (See post #93)

People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Irrelevant. The security of American citizens is not in the hands of "people in foreign countries."

John Kerry agrees.  (See post #93)
 

#200 citizen Able:

Why don't you stop ignoring the liberal Democrat after liberal Democrat after liberal Democrat who made speeches on the Senate and House floors citing the fact that Saddam had used WMD's, was known to be actively trying to acquire or build them, and was a looming threat to regional and world stability?

Why don't you stop ignoring the multiple UN resolutions regarding weapons inspections that Saddam flouted, along with his French, German and Russian friends' feverish efforts to neuter the most recent inspections regime by engineering the appointment of a Swedish Inspector Clouseau as head inspector?

Why don't you stop ignoring the multiple Western intelligence agencies who believed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles available for use, and that he wasn't far from making himself a nuclear power?

Why don't you stop ignoring the hordes of anti-war types who shrieked at length about the WMD threats our troops would face once they crossed the Iraq border?

Sorry, sparky. Facts are inconvenient things - and to a LLL, they're like garlic to a vampire.

Edward, in a desperate attempt to seek attention bleats about Saddam being suspected of involvement in 9-11...
How did 69% of Americans come to that conclusion?


Oh, perhaps the leftwing media, in its constant attempt to smear Bush, led them to believe it?

Well, I do seem to recall nearly a year ago people bleating about how we shouldn't attack Iraq because Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Perhaps some people came to the conclusion that those people were lying and/or wrong...