Democrats & Liberals: Archives

You forgot to complain about North Korea’s latest declaration :)

Reality bothers Republicans. That’s why they have people like Gannon working for them. Republican Mud Slinger by day. Pimp for Homosexual Soldiers by night.

Rush Limbugh is a Rightwing Basher by Day. Drug Addict by Night.

Bill O’Reilly is a Conservative attack dog by day. Sexual Pervert by night.

your continued belief that your side of the partisan divide has superior personal morality than your opponents is very unhealthy in my view.

Apologies if I offend.

However, Liberals have never claimed morality as our bastion. Understanding, Peace and Tolerance are the mainstays of Progressives. Which Party calls the other UnAmerican? Who calls the other UnPatriotic? Who always implies that we don’t Support the Troops? That we don’t believe in God? Now we find out all kinds of crap coming out of this Administration and I am very upset of the hypocrisy of it!!! Just how many paid mercenaries does Bush have out there? Is there such a thing as a Free Press anymore? What is Truth? I can tell you all right now that I get ALL my news from Comedians. Between Faux News and CBS, its become pointless to watch anything else.

Liberals have never claimed morality as our bastion.

“Understanding, Peace and Tolerance” are meaningless without integrity. That’s one of the main reasons why you keep losing elections. Our party has plenty of people who lack integrity, but at least as a whole we are more committed to a moral high ground. That’s why my first article on this website went after those whom my own party would try to defend.

Let’s play politics for a second. Look at the title of the latest article in the liberal column, for example. Today, I see 6 negative articles on the liberal side, all attacking the other party. On the conservative side, I see two positive articles and five negatives. Three of those five are tackling morality in their own party. Is this all a coincidence? Is it only like this because our party is in power?

What type of people talk about emigrating to Canada when they lose an election? What type of people apologize for being American when they visit foreign countries? What type of people deny allegiance to their President, badmouth the work of our troops, and look for the clouds on a sunny day?

What kind of people don’t learn to apologize properly? “Apologies if I offend” is meaningless. You might as well say “suck it up, loser” behind my back. I respect everyone in this forum, regardless of their party, until they lose it by saying something rude. Sarcasm is one thing; personal criticisms are quite another. Whoever signed off as “I hate liberals” the other day lost my respect the moment he showed up. You’ve just lost it as well.

I have removed the personal attacks in the above discussion and remove the posts that became irrelevant because of them.

Personal attacks on WatchBlog are not within the site’s scope and mission. We are here to debate politics in an intelligent and civil manner. Those who fail to behave will be asked to leave. Thanks.

The moral high ground is, in my opinion, an inaccurate description for where the republican right stands. Morality, I’m led to believe, is not integrity (Republicans certainly stick to their guns), nor is it religion (Jesus was, however, moral). Morality is easier to define in terms of what it is not:

- killing (Even though it’s a religious quote, “Thou shalt not kill” should be stapled on 52% of the country’s foreheads because apparently they’ve forgotten that part)
- depriving people of rights and freedoms
- dividing communities
- threatening war
- boasting

As I said, the above does not accurately describe the current state of the union.

“What type of people talk about emigrating to Canada when they lose an election?”

People who feel they haven’t lost just an election, but they feel they’ve lost the reasons they were living in this country to begin with. Liberty, Freedom, Respect - those were voted out.

“What type of people apologize for being American when they visit foreign countries?”

The type of people who are not ignorant of the way America is viewed by foreign countries. We destroy cultures by forcing our wares and outdoing their markets - they either change their culture to compete, or they starve. Think Mom & Pop going under because of the new Walmart - then make Mom & Pop a small country.

“What type of people deny allegiance to their President, badmouth the work of our troops, and look for the clouds on a sunny day?”

I haven’t heard too much denying of allegiance to the President. I’m not a big fan of most of his policies, or the image he’s giving the world of our once fair country, but it’s my right to say so, because THAT is American. Our troops have the unfortunate occurence to be under a commander who doesn’t know what he’s doing. Serving in the armed forces, there’s always the threat of war, death, maiming. But to be placed in harm’s way for no decipherable reason, imagine that. If I were younger, I might’ve signed up after 9/11. But now…when our president is no longer defending America, but using his troops as bullet stoppers on his was to his own agenda (oil, power, “security”…who knows?)…You need to be braver than me to decide to die for nothing.

And clouds on a sunny day: I don’t care that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons - so do we, so do most of the G7 countries. What I do care about is our administration irking those people so much that they use them. Most nation leaders are a little kooky, you can’t be one unless you’re slightly unhinged because if you’re not, you’d know you’d never want the job. But despite Pyongyang’s bravado, I’m much more concerned about our president’s. He’s irking the world. If the reasons the world didn’t like us were nebulous to Americans before, you’ve got a very clear one right in the White House.

In defense of our nation, our hope lies in people who realize that American staying power is not about military strength, but about who people look to as an example. If we were one tenth our land mass and not 5000 miles from our nearest possible antagonist, we would be labeled a rogue nation. “Evil”, in our president’s words. Bolster our nation with education, friendship, forgiveness, leading other nations toward something greater, rather than taking it all away.

I love what our country might have been, and what it could still be, if we could find the moral high ground again.

Pimp for Homosexual Soldiers by night

I thought the left was all for Homosexual Soldiers, don’t you remember “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”?

Rush Limbugh is a Rightwing Basher by Day. Drug Addict by Night.

Too bad for Rush that he didn’t work in the Clinton White House where drug testing of staff was suspended when Bill took office.

Bill O’Reilly is a Conservative attack dog by day. Sexual Pervert by night.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

Who always implies that we don’t Support the Troops?

The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.” Sen Edward Kennedy

Which Party calls the other UnAmerican? Who calls the other UnPatriotic?

The majority of people do not want to see our democracy hijacked by the squatter on federal land at 1600 Pennsylvania. Michael Moore

Is there such a thing as a Free Press anymore? What is Truth?

I don’t know lets ask Dan Rather or the Clinton News Network who violated all sorts of journalistic ethics so that they could broadcast from inside Iraq before the start of OIF.

Kirk

Nitpicking such statements one by one does not dispel the reality that the right has used the charge that liberal and progressive politics have led to a slide into immorality and licentiousness in this country, and that Republicans and conservatives are the upholders of integrity and morality. This is the logic by which they have swayed the religious right to support their quest for political preeminence. Subverting the press through placement of paid shills as reporters, abusing drugs while lambasting the oppositions lack of moral restraint, etc. (remember Bill Bennett’s hypocrisy?), are all activities that run counter to the promulgated view of Republicans and conservatives as the last bastion of decent behavior. It is also unfair to equate Kennedy’s stating the obvious fact that the occupation by US soldiers can be a spark to those resisting such occupation, on the one hand, to “not supporting the troops,” whatever that means to you. (To some of us, it means not exposing them to risk of death in efforts for vague or misdirected reasons.) You need to face up to the inevitable hypocrisy of characterizing the other side as being a bunch of hedonists bent on corrupting the morals of Americans, when we are all human and have personal foibles. Not a one of our political heroes, right or left, lack personal character flaws. It’s not that those more to the left than you think they are morally superior, they just recognize that those on the right aren’t.

The word integrity implies by definition a gestalt between what one says and does. If you advocate certain policies or philosophies, you must make a good faith effort to live by and with them. The Republican party has two choices here, besides denial: they can clean up house, and the be moralists, or they can admit that the culture war is over and nobody won. The second option is best, ultimately. If the Republican party does not cast public judgment down on the Democrats, they will not be liable to such intense public judgment when they inevitably fall short.

On the other hand, I might say “Nitpicking my statements one by one does not dispel the reality that the left has used to charge that conservative and Republican politics have led to a slide into intolerance and bigotry in this country, and that Democrats and liberals are the upholders of justice and social welfare. This is the logic by which they have swayed the religious left to support their quest for political preeminence.” Etc, on and on.

We’re just playing politics folks. Unfortunately this sort of discussion isn’t doing to get either side very far; we’re just getting better at throwing insults at the other side. The solution is more open, thought-provoking posts that seek answers rather than partisan consensus. The sort of Bush-bashing posts that have dominated this left column over the last few days aren’t going to get us anywhere.

Wimp,

when we are all human and have personal foibles. Not a one of our political heroes, right or left, lack personal character flaws.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. However, the rest of your post fits in nicely with the majority of the Bush / Conservative Bashing that goes on here in the left hand column.

Stephen,

or they can admit that the culture war is over and nobody won. The second option is best, ultimately.

I disagree 100%. We all should look to be as morally upstanding as possible and to hold others accountable for their actions. To do otherwise is to start down a path that leads to ruin.

they will not be liable to such intense public judgment when they inevitably fall short.

Public officials on both sides and in the middle should be held to intense judgement when they fall short. At the same time those holding them accountable must not turn a blind eye to the positive things that they do in order to intensify their scrutiny.

“your continued belief that your side of the partisan divide has superior personal morality than your opponents is very unhealthy in my view.”

As if there is a moral high ground in politics.

Kirk-
I suppose I fell short in my words. By judgment I do not mean criticism, which I see as a necessary part of the system, but rather judgment in the biblical sense.

I think it is unproductive for either side to institutionalize the excoriation of the other. This is what I mean by the Culture war being over and nobody winning. This is like the end of Animal Farm, where the Farmers and the Pigs ended up little different from each other. Well, Democrats have become more like the conservatives in many ways, and Republicans more like the Democrats.

Instead of one side triumphing, we have seen the adaptation of both sides as each challenged the other, responded to the other, triumphed against the other.

Yet both sides see the virtues they value most slip away. Civic-mindedness, respect for the law, respect for traditional values…

The problem with unconditional support for political parties, is that those parties change over time, and people aren’t always honest with themselves about the extent and nature of these changes. We need to understand that such political parties cannot represent the sum total of our perspective on the world. We must be able to figure out our morality on our own level. The message can no longer be victory at all costs, because the original spirit of the efforts and the agenda can be the cost of that grab for power, especially when power becomes an object in itself.

Strphen,

In that sense I would have to say that I agree with you for the most part.

I can say that I have not agreed with everything that President Bush has done. Nor did I agree with everything he did as my Govenor. But when I look at what he has done in total along with what he says he wants to accomplish in the coming 4 years, I have to say that I do support him.

In much the same way, I cannot say that I disagreed with everything that Clinton did in his 8 years. I did with most but not everything. Which just goes to prove that there is good and bad in all of us and the way we see good and bad in others is through our own filters.

Some Liberal Media is starting to see the true relevance of our mission in Iraq as evidenced by the excerpts from the three articles below.

Sorry for the length.

From the Dallas Morning News (Feb 11, 2005)

You’ll never catch the commentariat following Mom’s quaint advice: “If you don’t have anything good to say about someone, then don’t say it at all.” But this week several have backed off their usual role as critic in order to recognize the stature of four men who seem intent on transformative politics.

Probably the most unexpected viewpoint comes from Richard Cohen, a columnist who usually sharpens his tongue on President Bush’s doings. This time, though, he extends a grudging respect, putting to rest the perception of Mr. Bush as a man who limits his reading to the TelePrompTer. “Mr. Bush was never the Texas dolt he was made out to be – he is blessed with a quick and keen wit – and he is not now a blinkin’ intellectual,” he writes. “But two presidential elections and a war have shown Mr. Bush what he must have long suspected – that he has vast leadership abilities and that he has been called (and you know by who) to his historic role.”

Whether or not you agree with Mr. Bush, the columnist believes, “he just might become one of those American presidents who is thought to have made a difference.” Why? Mr. Cohen sees a clue in the new image of Mr. Bush as a reader of history books. If he does gravitate toward them, “it’s not because he fears reliving history either as tragedy or farce,” the columnist writes. “It’s because he intends to change it.”

From Mark Brown Columnist for the Chicago Sun
Times (Feb 1, 2005)

Maybe you’re like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started…you couldn’t help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted. By now, you might have even voted against George Bush — a second time — to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday’s election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It’s hard to swallow, isn’t it?

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you’re fighting the idea, because I am, too.

From Tom Junod Esquire Magazine (8-11-2004)

It happened again this morning. I saw a picture of our president and my feelings about him were instantly rekindled. The picture was taken after his speech to the graduating seniors at the Air Force Academy…

Although one man was essentially being asked to stake his life on the wisdom of the other, both were melded in an attitude of common purpose, and so both struck a common pose… They flexed! I didn’t know anything about the cadet. About President George W. Bush, though, I felt the satisfaction of absolute certainty, and so uttered the words as essential to my morning as my cup of Kenyan and my dose of high-minded outrage on the editorial page of the Times : “What an asshole.”

Ah. That feels better. George W. Bush is an asshole, isn’t he? Moreover, he’s the first president who seems merely that, at least in my lifetime. From Kennedy to Clinton there is not a single president who would have been capable of striking such a pose after concluding a speech about a war in which hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis are being killed….that permitted me the greedy pleasure of hating him.

Then I read the text of the speech he gave and was thrown from one kind of certainty—the comfortable kind—into another. He was speaking, as he always does, of the moral underpinnings of our mission in Iraq. He was comparing, as he always does, the challenge that we face, in the evil of global terrorism, to the challenge our fathers and grandfathers faced, in the evil of fascism. He was insisting, as he always does, that the evil of global terrorism is exactly that, an evil—one of almost transcendent dimension that quite simply must be met, lest we be remembered for not meeting it … lest we allow it to be our judge. I agreed with most of what he said, as I often do when he’s defining matters of principle. No, more than that, I thought that he was defining principles that desperately needed defining, with a clarity that those of my own political stripe demonstrate only when they’re decrying either his policies or his character. He was making a moral proposition upon which he was basing his entire presidency—or said he was basing his entire presidency—and I found myself in the strange position of buying into the proposition without buying into the presidency, of buying into the words while rejecting, utterly, the man who spoke them.

As easy as it is to say that we can’t abide the president…what haunts me is the possibility that we can’t abide him because of us—because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.

The people who dislike George W. Bush have convinced themselves that opposition to his presidency is the most compelling moral issue of the day. Well, it’s not. The most compelling moral issue of the day is exactly what he says it is, when he’s not saying it’s gay marriage…his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated…Worse, the gulf between the two kinds of certainty lends credence to the conservative notion that liberals have settled for the conviction that Bush is distasteful as a substitute for conviction—because it’s easier than conviction.

YEAH, YEAH, I KNOW: Nobody who opposes Bush thinks that terrorism is a good thing. The issue is not whether the United States should be involved in a war on terrorism but rather whether the war on terrorism is best served by war in Iraq. And now that the war has defied the optimism of its advocates, the issue is no longer Bush’s moral intention but rather his simple competence. He got us in when he had no idea how to get us out. He allowed himself to be blinded by ideology and blindsided by ideologues. His arrogance led him to offend the very allies whose participation would have enabled us to win not just the war but the peace. His obsession with Saddam Hussein led him to rush into a war that was unnecessary. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy. Sure, the world is a better place without him. But .

And there it is: the inevitable but . Trailed by its uncomfortable ellipsis, it sits squirming at the end of the argument against George Bush for very good reason: It can’t possibly sit at the beginning. Bush haters have to back into it because there’s nothing beyond it. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, but … but what ? But he wasn’t so bad that we had to do anything about him? But he wasn’t so bad that he was worth the shedding of American blood? But there are other dictators just as bad whom we leave in place? But he provided Bush the opportunity to establish the doctrine of preemptive war, in which case the cure is worse than the disease? But we should have secured Afghanistan before invading Iraq? But we should have secured the cooperation of allies who were no more inclined to depose Saddam than they—or we, as head of an international coalition of the unwilling—were to stop the genocide in Rwanda ten years before? Sure, genocide is bad, but …
We might as well credit the president for his one great accomplishment: replacing but with and as a basis for foreign policy. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and we got rid of him. And unless we have become so wedded to the politics of regret that we are obligated to indulge in a perverse kind of nostalgia for the days of Uday and Qusay, we have to admit that it’s hard to imagine a world with Saddam still in it.

I WILL NEVER FORGET the sickly smile that crossed the president’s face when he asked us all to go shopping in the wake of 9/11. It was desperate and a little craven, and I never forgave him for it. As it turned out, though, his appeal succeeded all too well…The immediacy of the threat was replaced by the inexplicability of the threat level. A universal war—the war on terror—was succeeded by a narrow one, an elective one, a personal one, in Iraq. Eventually, the president made it easy to believe that the threat from within was as great as the threat from without. That those at home who declared American moral primacy were as dangerous as those abroad who declared our moral degeneracy. That our national security was not worth the risk to our soul. That Abu Ghraib disproved the rightness of our cause and so represented the symbolic end of the war that began on 9/11. And that the very worst thing that could happen to this country would be four more years of George W. Bush. In a nation that loves fairy tales, the president seemed so damned eager to cry wolf that we decided he was just trying to keep us scared and that maybe he was just as big a villain as the wolf he insisted on telling us about. That’s the whole point of the story, isn’t it? The boy cries wolf for his own ends, and after a while people stop believing in the reality of the threat.

I know how this story ends, because I’ve told it many times myself. I’ve told it so many times, in fact, that I’m always surprised when the wolf turns out to be real, and shows up hungry at the door, long after the boy is gone.

This is Clarke’s memo that Bush did not respond to until seven days before the attack: Clarke’s terror memo

The material in there was not merely about some threat, but about the other consequences of the terrorist’s presence and our foreign policy in this area. That Bush took the better part of the year to respond to this is indicative of an attitude that refused to see terrorism as the new threat of our time until it was too late.

I’ve just got to speak to the issue of “morals” in politics. (No small task to accomplish with a straight face). I’m not stretching the truth when I say that politicians of every stripe are people who, at times, are as immoral as anyone. Sometimes very much moreso. That’s not the issue. The issue is which side claims to be morally superior. That’d be the right, for those of you playing along at home. THAT’S what chaps my liberal rear end. It’s also proven to be a bit of a sword of Damocles for the left, i.e., we’re not into breast beating about our moral fiber as much as we are into trying to do what we feel is right. In other words, if the right were merely content to do that which they felt compelled to do as “right” in their opinion, then this wouldn’t even be on the table for discussion. Issues would be on the table, and rightly so. BUT, the right, just as full of problems and foibles as the left, DOES claim moral superiority, and worse, that the left is the cause of moral disintegration. That’s disingenuous at best, hypocritical, cynical demagoguery at worst. (Your mileage may vay). You can stand on a stump and say, “I am a good, moral man and as such, I know what’s right. Do what I say and you too can be moral. You’re either with me or you’re one of the bad guys!” But if no one bothers to ask if what you are claiming is actually true, then you get something you didn’t want. I’ve had discussions with otherwise sane-seeming folks as to WHY Americas’ sanctioning of torture is wrong, not the fact THAT we are committing torture is wrong. That’s a semantic difference that is about as subtle as a hand-grenade in a bowl of oatmeal. The current strength the right enjoys is due in no small part to innate conservative respect for authority and power. Conversely, lefties suffer an almost fatal Achilles heel by virtue (or vice) of precisely the opposite. We question and are naturally (and I feel justifiably) suspicious of authority. Even our own. Power corrupts in direct proportion to how much of it you have. It’s a law of nature. Mock the right all you want for being “sheeple” or being in “Lock step,” for now at least, it seems to be working. That being said, I’m intrigued by the comparison made of the shift from libertarian republicanism to more authoritarian republicanism. If true, this phenomena is a two edged sword, for these same folks are libertarian by nature, authoritarian by choice. I believe that if at any time they feel betrayed, they’ll rend the betrayers to political shreds in an orgy of righteous indignation. That’s the light at the end of the tunnel for me. With the current Republican majority, they can’t blame anything they do on the Democrats and sound sane. And, as more and more absolute power accrues to the Bushies, they will inevitably succumb to same. They’re all ready drunk with it. It’s not an if, it’s a when. When bourgeoisie, nouveau-publicans realize that the neo-cons are giving them the business, especially poor and rural Republicans, then you’ll see something very interesting. The question is how much baloney can Bush get away with force-feeding ‘em before they choke on it. I’m no Nostradamus, but you heard it here first. I’ll be spending the next four years wondering at each new outrage, “Is this the one?”

Kirk-
I know what they speak of. That feeling is what prompted me to write The Depths of Memory.

The successful election has been a major victory for the Bush administration, but it erases none of the lies they told, and does not resolve by itself any of the errors that the Bush Administration committed. They remain there, whether we recall them or not. psychological oblivion does not constitute security.

The administration has continually decieved us. That is what angers us. It doesn’t help that it seems they may get away with it. That only makes it worse. We aren’t afraid of the election, we’re afraid there may be things Bush isn’t telling us that may turn events south! Bush has a nasty habit of not letting us in on the truth until its too late to do anything about it. That is a tyranny of the first order, one that is viscerally offensive to those who know the score on what’s happened up to this point.

Bush’s supporters have self-censored the ugly news about it, blaming bias, blaming Democrats, blaming doubters, blaming everybody but those whose acts are being debated. As a result, I don’t think most of you are that aware of the dark things that dwell in that abyss of memory your people don’t acknowledge.

People re-elected Bush not because they were stupid, or all that enthusiastic for them, but because they simply did not know how badly things have gotten. If they knew, Bush would be back in Crawford and Kerry would be in the white House.

I’m afraid that sooner or later our luck will run out the way it did on 9/11, and that we will find out after the fact that the Bush administration could have prevented this, If they had simply listened. This is an administration too locked into itself to functionally govern.

The conflict that keeps many liberals from joining with Bush is that they don’t know the extent to which this Administration has allowed them to be informed of the facts. We’ve already cooperated with him once to go to war, and we ended up finding out that our justifications for doing so were not there. How can I willingly put my faith in the hands of somebody who has absolutely no faith in putting the truth in mine?

These three pieces grabbed me for a reason. It’s not a culture war, it’s not about who religion or goes to bed with who, it’s not really about politics in the usual sense - eg whether to raise taxes or change gun-control laws. There’s a pattern here, guys, and it’s a scary one. This is just so “wag the dog”.

There is (apparently) a systematic attempt to not convince others that the government is right, but control what others know - to control what both the public and other political leaders know about the issues. From Medicaid costs to national security to press conferences, the government is no longer playing by the rules. Actuaries are threatened, documents are classified to the detriment of national security, and the “independent” press is bought off and replaced with partisan plants.

Knowledge is power. The USA has always worked by checks and balances, and central government has never had, or sought, this sort of power. Even if you’re W’s biggest fan, you gotta worry about the precedent in place here. Who’s going to be pulling all these strings five years from now? and will you trust him as much?

You guys spent the last 4years trying to push him in front of the bus. He still prevailed. What went wrong? Is it maybe people are catching on, well some of them anyway. Most Americans believe that the people come first, they don’t need the government to tell them how they should live their lives.

[WatchBlog Manager]: This post below refers to several posts I have removed because they were off-topic. This post remains becuase it talks about the recent server hack. See below.

Why bother????

Come on Rocky, please don’t give up. I’m one of the many people who never post on blogs but read them voraciosly everyday. People like me need you guys to keep us entertained as well as informed.

There’ve been many times that I’d see something on the news and think to myself “I wonder what those guys over at Watchblog’ll make of this and then wait earnestly for someone to bring it up.

I swear, I learned more about the US government from reading you guys than from my history classes. One of the bleakest days in my recent past has to be the day that WB was attacked by hackers - oh God, what a day!

You guys are doing a great job…keep it up!

[WatchBlog Manager]: The server hack from last week was not intentionally targetting WatchBlog. Every web site on the server was defaced, not just WB. We had to take the server down for a day to rebuild the OS, recompile the kernel and re-install the software since it is unknown what the intent of the hackers was.

Yep, I support Bush. Like I said, the people want to be able to spend their money on what they see fit, not have somebody take it from them and use it to buy voters. Does this mean I can play in your sandbox?

Stephen,
That Bush took the better part of the year to respond to this is indicative of an attitude that refused to see terrorism as the new threat of our time until it was too late.

The president did not take the better part of a year to respond. In April 2001 Bush instructed Condoleeza Rice to draft a strategy to deal with Al Qaeda and Kill Bin Laden. The plan that Rice came up with was basically the same that Clarke drafted for Clinton but was never implemented.

Below is a portion of an article from Time Magazine.

In a few other instances, Clarke’s televised comments seem designed to disparage the President and his aides at all cost, omitting any of the inconvenient details — some of which appear in the pages of his book — that might suggest the White House took al-Qaeda seriously before Sept. 11. Bush, Clarke says, “never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject.” This has been a constant refrain in Clarke’s public statements — that Bush’s failure to call a “Principal’s Meeting” of his cabinet to discuss terrorism until the week before Sept. 11 showed a lack of interest in al-Qaeda. While it is technically true that the White House did not hold a Cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda until Sept. 4, the charge is still misleading, since Bush, as early as April 2001, had instructed Rice to draft a strategy for rolling back al-Qaeda and killing bin Laden, saying he was tired of “swatting flies” —, a line Clarke does include in his book. Rice’s response was to task a committee of deputies to study the U.S.’s options for rolling back the Taliban; the group ultimately concluded that the U.S. should increase its support to the Northern Alliance and pressure on Pakistan to cooperate in a campaign to remove the Taliban. It was essentially the same plan Clarke had drafted during the Clinton Administration. As his book details, the plan was scuttled by intransigence at the CIA and the Pentagon, neither of which Clinton wanted to confront head-on.

Also, if you really look at the Clarke Memo you reference, a muddied picture can be painted. While Clarke does say that “We urgently need such a Principals (cabinet) level review” he also makes statements that could lead one to determine that the urgency was not that immediate.

He offers the possibility that his “analysis is a chicken little over reaching and can we proceed without major new initiatives and by handling this issue in a more routine manner?”

Clarke also offers to use the 2000 Strategy Paper attached to ”using the 2000paper as a background, we could prepare a decision paper/guide for a PC review.”

As to the USS Cole attack which happened in Oct 2000 under the Clinton Administration roughly 3 months before the Clarke Memo, Clarke states When and how does the administration choose to respond to the attack on the USS Cole…avoid a knee jerk reaction.

My question is why was the Bush Administration left to respond to the USS Cole attack? The Clinton Administration should have already
responded forcefully.

Clarke finishes his memo with please let us know if you would like such a decision/discussion paper or any modification to the background paper.

Clarke’s offer to do decision papers, guides, discussion papers, modifications to background papers and refernece to a knee jerk reacion definitely gives the impression that while Al Qaeda is a threat it is not a drop everything until this is taken care of issue.

Could things have been handled differently in the less than 8 months between Bush’s inauguration and the 9/11 attacks? Most definitely, but hindsight is always 20/20. I am sure considering what we know now the administration would have approached things with greater urgency in those early months. However, with the lack of urgency that was placed on Al Qaeda by the Clinton Administration and the points stated above from the Clarke Memo that level of urgency may unfortunately not have been present.

Below is a portion of an interview of Richard Clarke on the PBS show Frontline, where the lack of urgency from the previous administration is laid clear.

FRONTLINE: Some also say that due to the Lewinsky scandal, more action perhaps was never undertaken. In your eyes?

CLARKE: The interagency group on which I sat and John O’Neill sat—we never asked for a particular action to be authorized and were refused. We were never refused. Any time we took a proposal to higher authority, with one or two exceptions, it was approved …

FRONTLINE: But didn’t you push for military action after the [al Qaeda bombing of the USS] Cole?

CLARKE: Yes, that’s one of the exceptions..

FRONTLINE: How important is that exception?

CLARKE: I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed. So many, many trained and indoctrinated al Qaeda terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn’t have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier.

FRONTLINE: Without intelligence operatives on the ground in these organizations, how in the end does one stop something like this? If you look back on it now and you had one wish, you could have had one thing done, what would it have been?

CLARKE: Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. They would have been a hell of a lot less capable of recruiting people. Their whole “Come to Afghanistan where you’ll be safe and you’ll be trained”—well, that wouldn’t have worked if every time they got a camp together, it was blown up by the United States. That’s the one thing that we recommended that didn’t happen—the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.

FRONTLINE: So that’s a pretty basic mistake that we made?

CLARKE: Well, I’m not prepared to call it a mistake. It was a judgment made by people who had to take into account a lot of other issues. None of these decisions took place in isolation. There was the Middle East peace process going on. There was the war in Yugoslavia going on. People above my rank had to judge what could be done in the counterterrorism world at a time when they were also pursuing other national goals.

I do not use the interview above to say that 9/11 was Clinton’s fault or to deflect any blame from the Bush Administration, but to set the stage for the situation that Bush found when he took office. The Clarke memo was after all dated Jan 25, 2001 only four days after Bush’s inauguration.

It is very easy to critize now based on hindsight but the last time I checked God was the only one blessed (or maybe that should be cursed) with foreknowledge.

“independent” press is bought off and replaced with partisan plants.

William by this I take it that you are referring to Jeff Gannon.

Yet many of you in the left column defended the partisan plant when the question was asked to Rumsfeld in Iraq. It was discussed at length on this very blog. The overriding message from the left column was that the ends justified the means regardless of any journalistic ethics that were violated.

During the Rather incident, I saw posts from the left column that basically stated that “even if the documents were forged the information was true”. Evidence shows that Rather and CBS were warned that the documents were forged before the story aired. Not to mention the source for the documents in the first place.

You can’t have it both ways. If you want your arguments to be given any credence you cannot damn one side for what you consider manipulation of the media and give the other side a pass. Unless you simply want to stir further partisan rhetoric.

I thought the lib’s killed God. Is he still around? (nice cut and paste work.)

So, Jake, how much more money you got to spend now that Bush is president?

Kirk, you’ve made a good point there. I was disappointed that the question posed to Mr. Rumsfeld was planted, but I still felt it a good question. Compared with the Gannon incident, I’m not sure the two events are very similar.

An incident that might’ve been similar was the question posed to Mr. Bush, and I paraphrase: “What differences do you see between Dick Cheney and John Edwards?” To which Mr. Bush replied: “Dick Cheney could be president”. I don’t know if that question was planted, but it had the same effect as the one posed to Mr. Rumsfeld, only on a positive note for the responder.

The Gannon issue goes a little deeper - a person was allowed by the president to partake in conferences where only reporters should be allowed, for the sole purpose of propping up the president’s reputation. The marine should have been there. Perhaps the reporter who asked the question of Mr. Bush should have been there. “Gannon” should not have been there.

It’s an ongoing story, growing by the minute.

I have a few questions for any true Bush supporters, because I do have a difficult time seeing Bush in a good light on certain issues:

1) Saying Saddam was a terrible man, and his son’s worse…was war and the death of thousands the only solution left to us? My feeling is the U.N. hesitated to join us in the attack because they felt more could be tried.

2) Professors at the University say Bush is halting research projects and diverting money from education at all levels. While budgets need to be cut, cutting education is never going to improve America in the long run.

3) Environmentalists claim Bush is catering too much to the auto industry (regardless of his fuel cell ambitions) and not striving for higher fuel economy with all the gains it presents. We have the technology, but there’s no pressure to use it. There’s a market for it, but the administration is reluctant to back the cause.

These are 3 of the issues that make me feel Bush is pushing us backwards, not forwards. Where is our future if we lose our international respect, our education, and continue our reliance (some 30% of our trade deficit) on foreign oil? Bush is a good leader in at least one way: he does not deter from his chosen course. But what of the course?

During the Rather incident, I saw posts from the left column that basically stated that ?even if the documents were forged the information was true?.

Kirk, it is admirable that you can return each day to WB, in an attempt to counter what Gandhi claims are the ‘negative’ aspects of our Blue Column posts. However, if you’re going to attempt to use our words against us, I’d strongly suggest you link to them and/or quote them verbatim.

The alleged sentiment cited above sounds close to a statement I remember making often about the Killian memos - yet omitting the concluding phrase. My assertion was that regardless of the documents authenticity, the comments about Bush attributed to Killian were accurate - because they were effectively corroborated by Killian’s longtime secretary.

Yet many of you in the left column defended the partisan plant when the question was asked to Rumsfeld in Iraq.

Where your charge falters here Kirk, is that the same question had been asked repeatedly of Rumsfeld, the Pentagon and the Bush administration by the press, Congress and John Kerry. And, the question had been asked repeatedly by soldiers of their military command just as stridently - all to no avail. That soldier who asked the question passed on by the reporter, risked (in a very public manner) violating the Army’s Code of Conduct.

Therefore I ask you - can it be considered a ‘partisan plant’, when it eventually (and finally) leads to making sure our soldiers lives are protected to the fullest extent?

That’s my buissiness, but it’s not
a triful. I answered your question, now
it’s your turn. No?

Bert,

You said:

Therefore I ask you - can it be considered a ‘partisan plant’, when it eventually (and finally) leads to making sure our soldiers lives are protected to the fullest extent?

Your arguments before that stated that the question posed to Mr. Rumsfeld by a marine prompted by a reporter was a question that had been asked multiple times to multiple parties with no reply. That was your best argument. To say the above quote, is exactly saying what Kirk was talking about: Do only the democrat’s means justify the ends?

Thomas R,

Thanks for prompting me to be more clear.

My point, is that the question could not (should not) be considered ‘partisan’, which would imply the same motivation was behind the concerns previously expressed by the troops themselves. And, describing the question as a ‘plant’, infers the same concerns were never expressed directly to Rumsfeld - which they were repeatedly.

But, what is also maddening and damning, is the mentality of those who criticize the reporter’s efforts. How does one refuse to recognize that his sole motivation was out of genuine concern for the lives of these soldiers?

Interesting, comparing the Knoxville reporter with “Jeff.” Two different issues underlie those events.

The Knoxville reporter violated journalistic ethics. He did so by coaching a soldier to ask Rumsfeld an embarrassing question. (This is spinning it rightward, I know). It’s an example of media bias against the Bush administration.

“Jeff” became a reporter by paying $50 to a diploma mill for a two-day course. (This is spinning leftward, I know). The diploma mill is apparently the construction of GOP USA (story developing). “Jeff” set up a web site, posted nine unoriginal articles, and four days after setting up his site, “Jeff” received approval from the White HOuse to attend press briefings. He attended briefings under a false name, and somehow received security clearances to do so from the White House, not the press, despite… um, other web activities of a salacious nature. Press Secretary McClellan & President Bush called on “Jeff,” often in an apparent effort to deflect tough lines of questioning from other reporters.

“Jeff” was a fake reporter asking fate questions, a plant. This is not an issue of media bias. “Jeff” was not a member of the media. This is an issue involving freedom of the press.

Thomas R.-
God is in the details. In the case of the documents, the person who revealed their nature as forgeries, Marjorie Carr, confirmed their content as true.

As for the reporter and the soldier, the Soldier reportedly asked for help in composing the question. His fellow soldiers cheered. And obviously he had the choice to ask that question or not ask it.

An honest answer from Rumsfeld might have helped, too.

Thomas R.

a person was allowed by the president to partake in conferences where only reporters should be allowed,

Not trying to be argumentative on this point but two questions come to mind. 1) Do you think the president personally reviews the list of people given passes into press briefings? 2) What defines a reporter? Does the person have to work for a major Network or affiliate, A major Newspaper, or can a person be a reporter and work for a radio station or an online news source or a magazine?

And just because someone may not like the news they report does not keep them from being a reporter.

My feeling is the U.N. hesitated to join us in the attack because they felt more could be tried

You may be right on this but knowing what we now know about the Oil For Food program including Kofi’s son this has to at least be considered as a plausible reason for the UN to not want US troops in Baghdad.

For another reason that the UN did not offer their support I again use the words of Tom Junod that I posted above.

As easy as it is to say that we can’t abide the president…what haunts me is the possibility that we can’t abide him because of us—because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.

For 12 years and 14 Resolutions out of the Security Council, Saddam had thumbed his nose at all of them. Maybe the UN felt that further resolutions would bring Saddam in line. Maybe, they realized that to support Bush’s efforts would force them to admit that for the most part they have become impotent in the world.

Bush is halting research projects and diverting money from education at all levels. While budgets need to be cut, cutting education is never going to improve America in the long run.

The following comes directly from the Department of Education web site in an overview of Bush’s newly released 2006 Education Budget.

by submitting a budget request for 2006 that provides $56 billion in discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Education. Since taking office, President Bush has increased education funding by $13.8 billion, or 33 percent.

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/02/02072005.html

We have the technology, but there’s no pressure to use it. There’s a market for it, but the administration is reluctant to back the cause

The technology is not yet feasible for production vehicles. That is one reason for Bush setting aside $1.7 Billion for further research into manufacturability of fuel cell technologies. You had better believe that if there is a market and they have the technology, some enterprising company would have fuel cell vehicles on the road tomorrow. The monetary return to them would be well in excess of any development and tooling costs. Fuel cell technology may well be the wave of the future but we are not there yet.

continue our reliance (some 30% of our trade deficit) on foreign oil

Bush proposed drilling in desolate northern Alaska well above the Arctic Circle in ANWR but, the Democrats in the Senate defeated that plan. ANWR has the potential to produce more oil per day than the states of Texas and Louisiana combined. Democrats claimed that drilling in ANWR would destroy the ecosystem. However, the facts of the matter are that less than one half of one percent of ANWR would be affected.

Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

Bert,

because they were effectively corroborated by Killian’s longtime secretary.

And they were effectively denounced by Killian’s lifetime son who discussed George Bush with his father. I only know and recollect my own conversations with my father regarding this and that doesn’t reflect his feelings…but you know what I’m saying. He had a high regard for him.

Not only that but Marion Carr Knox was not Killian’s personal secretary but was assigned to support all officers in the group.

Gary Killian said,

Well, Marion Carr is a sweet lady. I’ve known her since I was six years old. It’s been represented that she was my father’s personal secretary. That’s not true.

She really was directed to do typing for any officer within the operations area. Her primary responsibility was to support the group commander.

And Amy Barnes the daughter of Ben Barnes who was the source of the memos has publicly stated that her father is “doing this for purely political reasons. He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And [the Bush story] is what he’s leading the book off with.”

Therefore I ask you - can it be considered a ‘partisan plant’, when it eventually (and finally) leads to making sure our soldiers lives are protected to the fullest extent?

Again the ends justify the means argument. I am not saying that the question should not have been asked. I am saying that it should not have been reported as news. When a reporter stages an event and then reports it as news they tarnish the credibility of the media. If we allow the media to make the news, how will we ever know what is real and what is essentially a play directed by the reporter?

Bert,

How does one refuse to recognize that his sole motivation was out of genuine concern for the lives of these soldiers?

Because he tried to pass the story off as news which it was not. By doing so he was trying to put a feather in his journalistic hat. At best it was an editorial and if he had presented it as such I would not have a problem with it. But, do not stage an event and call it news.

Phx8,

Press Secretary McClellan & President Bush called on “Jeff,” often in an apparent effort to deflect tough lines of questioning from other reporters.

McClellan says that he goes by row during press briefings to avoid favoring any one reporter.

Gannon attended a total of 4 briefings with the president. Three in the White House and 1 in the Rose Garden. He asked the president a total of 2 questions. The last that started all this follows.

“Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. … Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there’s no crisis there. You’ve said you’re going to reach out to these people. How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

Personally, I think it is a pretty good question.

Here are some of the things being said about Gannon by some real White House correspondents.

Ron Hutcheson, president of the White House Correspondents Association, has covered the president for Knight Ridder since 2001… Hutcheson pointed to Helen Thomas, the former UPI White House correspondent who now writes a column for Hearst Newspapers and still attends press briefings as sometimes doing the same thing from the left. “Her questions have changed since she switched from a reporter role to a columnist role,” he said. “Often all she is trying to do is make a political point.” But Thomas works for a major news operation with a wide and diverse audience.

Judy Keen, a USA Today White House reporter whose tenure dates back to the first President Bush, said Gannon was always cordial with her and may not be the only reporter with a political angle. “I do have some questions about whether he is a legitimate journalist,” she admitted. “But, if you start jerking people’s credentials based on who they work for, that is a dangerous road to go down. He is not the only one who occasionally includes a personal opinion.”

Kirk,
Tsk, tsk. In your “Jeff” quote, you omitted the reference to Sen. Reid and soup lines, didn’t you? Reid never referred to soup lines. It was inaccurate, and one of the events that put people onto “Jeff” in the first place.

Good question? No. There’s nothing wrong with polical bias. The question itself was factually inaccurate.

Knowing what you do about “Jeff”, do you consider him a ‘real’ reporter? Is every person posting on this site a reporter, or columnist? Are everyone of us entitled to daily passes to White House Press briefings?

Kirk-
1)No, but he has staff who review the press credentials.
2)The basic definition is somewhat ambiguous, but the standard is generally that the person works in journalism as a professional, making their living that way.

On the UN: There may have been conflicts of interests, but they were willing to go with us to the point where their inspectors started saying they weren’t finding any weapons.

The UN should have pressed harder, I concede, but that is for the most part a matter of our leadership. The problem of Iraq was always going to be an issue

On Education funding: Bush has diverted a ton of funding away from other programs to support No Child Left Behind, a monster of a program whose utility is dubious at best.

On Fuel Cells: We’re giving people thousands of dollars to encourage them to buy gas guzzlers. The least we can do is end artificial support for gasoline engines.

On ANWAR: You’re taking their word for it. The unfortunate fact is: technology is imperfect and resources acquisition, by it’s nature, expands infrastructure around it. But in the end, we need to separate ourselves from a dependency from oil. Better to do it now, while our economic prosperity gives us the resources and time for refinement.

On The Documents: Killian died just about twenty years ago, before Bush even got off the bottle. The question is whether Killian’s son ever had much opportunity to discuss this particular fellow with them.

Barnes was not the source for the documents, only for an allegation that he rigged the game for Bush (as he did with the sons of so many other rich and powerful folks) so he could get into the national guard ahead of others. Given his dismal test scores and not so dismal family connections, is it really so impossible?

As for political biases, we all have them, but the question is always about the extent of the interference of political belief with the honesty and memory of what is said. It is important to gauge eyewitness account by their degree of agreement and by accompanying evidence. You Republicans take your leaders word for things far too often. You’ll have little power over them if you’ll buy political bias as an explanation for every bit of bad news about their characters. Documents already released confirm both the insufficiency of Bush’s attendance and his failure to show up for the physical and his resulting grounding.

What Marion Knox adds to the mix is the confirmation that Bush was ordered to take the physical. It’s one thing to forget to attend of your own initiative, but to break an order in doing so is different. It would be in the best interests of conservatives to find out the truth. Otherwise you run the risk of being the dupes of your leaders. If you want honest and principled government, you must be uncompromising in your search for the truth, because nothing else will keep them in line.

On the Soldier’s question: The story with this is that the reporter was imbedded with the troop’s unit. The soldier came to him and asked him for help with the soldier’s question. The Soldier wanted to ask the question. The Reporter wanted the question asked. They collaborated.

How do you know the question is a real one? Ahhh. Well, a real question is one that the person asks of their own initiative. To some extent, the question was prepared, but the soldier willingly asked it, and the other troops cheered, which indicated that they too wanted to ask that question.

The only manipulation was in refinement, and making sure the soldier got to somebody to ask the question. In your excess of partisanship, you forget to ask yourself whether the question was one natural to the situation, to the audience. It was.

It was news, and rightfully so. It still is news, as a matter of fact. Although the Pentagon would later proclaim the complete armoring of the unit the man was attached to, they would neglect to tell most Americans that the greatest proportion of that armor was precisely the kind of ad-hoc armor the man’s question referred to.

It deeply disturbs me that you don’t see the fundamental reality of that soldier’s dilemma. You don’t ask whether the charges were true or false, you ask whether they were brought up naturally.

But why ask that? The naturalness of the question only matters in whether or not a journalist was actively trying to confront Rumsfeld on the issue. It could indicate other things, including a political agenda, granted, but it could also indicate a humanitarian or sympathetic agenda to another cause, in this case the plight of the soldiers. You assume evil motives for this involvement of the reporter. But why?

The answer to that question is that Modern Republicans have been taught to aid in the self-preservation of their officials against journalists and political opponents, regardless of the virtues of the person in question or the nature of the charges.

Which is why you defend Bush and McClellan on the issue of Jeff Gannon. He asks a complex question(one which deceptively links two different issues), a leading question, and quite plainly a partisan question, openly insulting democrats as having “divorced themselves from reality”. There’s putting a point of view in your questions, then there’s becoming a mouthpiece for a political party, with marching orders and resources coming from them.

As for Helen Thomas, after years of being front row for many presidents and asking tough questions of them all, Bush had her shoved to the back row for merely doing the same of him.

I think you shouldn’t cheer such arrogant dealings with the press. One day, it may be the question you want asked that doesn’t get asked of the people you want it asked of.

I have been reading the current posts and have been fascinated how well spoken you all are. Your arguments are all compelling. That in my in opinion is where the problem lies with the liberals/progressives. Most people are not well spoken or well read. The majority of them do not know the issues well enough to be able to argue them.
These last two elections were won by a campaign strategy not any issue. The republicans recognize that people in general are easily manipulated, especially religious people. Jesus to them is the Ace in thier sleeve. If they look like they are in trouble they whip out the God card. People went to the poles mostly because of fear from repettive slogans. Republicans honestly believe that if you keep droning out the same slogan that the masses will take it as gospel and guess what they were right.
Keep bickering about issues, that is what the Reps want the Dems to do. Meanwhile, they will keep controlling the country through staged press confrences and, “invite only”, public speeches.
We to follow the Republican example by focusing on winning elections instead of worrying about issues. Worry about issues when we have the power to do something about them. Now is not that time.

Mark,
Good post, and food for thought… Win elections, and the issues follow. I’m hoping Dean in the DNC can bring a win.

It isn’t pretty, but I guess that’s politics.

Kirk wrote:

Because he tried to pass the story off as news which it was not. By doing so he was trying to put a feather in his journalistic hat. At best it was an editorial and if he had presented it as such I would not have a problem with it. But, do not stage an event and call it news.

This is as convoluted, as it is an exaggerated distortion. How does a credible, dire question about effectively protecting the lives of our soldiers, morph into an ‘editorial’?

Stephen,

On Education funding: Bush has diverted a ton of funding away from other programs to support No Child Left Behind, a monster of a program whose utility is dubious at best.

Since taking office, President Bush has increased education funding by $13.8 billion, or 33 percent.

Why is it dubious to give students tests to see if they are learning and prepared to move to the next grade level?

We’re giving people thousands of dollars to encourage them to buy gas guzzlers.

I agree. Although it started with good intentions, this was a poorly written law. The attempt to help small business during the downturn was the right thing to do. However, the law was not written clearly enough to prevent individuals from benefiting from the tax break with very loose claims of a business use for the vehicle.

Barnes was not the source for the documents, only for an allegation that he rigged the game for Bush

You are correct. It was Bill Burkett who supplied the forged documents to Rather. Too many “killer B’s” with integrity issues in one place for me to keep them straight. Barnes did however appear on the broadcast where Rather used to forged documents to make his allegations.

While Barnes was the Lt. Governor of Texas he was involved in the Sharpstown Stock Scandal. Many of his coconspirators were thrown in jail or received probation. Barnes has also been implicated in two state lottery kickback schemes in New Jersey and Texas. Barnes’ shady legal past and the statements from his daughter lead me to place nearly zero credibility in anything Barnes is involved with.

From a CNN story referencing an LA Times investigation into Bush’s ANG Service.

“He said he wanted to fly just like his daddy,” Bush’s commander, Col. Walter B. “Buck” Staudt, told the Times. “Nobody did anything for him. There was no … influence on his behalf.”

The Times reported that many of Bush’s former colleagues and superiors in the Guard remember him as a bright young leader who worked hard.

“He did the work. His daddy didn’t do it for him,” said retired Maj. Willie J. Hooper.

You don’t ask whether the charges were true or false, you ask whether they were brought up naturally.

Like I have said before, I do not have an issue with the question itself only in the way it was asked and presented as news. As my two statements from above will show.

I am not saying that the question should not have been asked. I am saying that it should not have been reported as news.

At best it was an editorial and if he had presented it as such I would not have a problem with it.

Again, a staged event or question is not news. When you cross that line you go from being a reporter to being a columnist and should present your story as such.

You assume evil motives for this involvement of the reporter. But why?

I do not assume evil motives only dishonest and self-promoting ones. Below are excerpts from a Marine Corps Times article concerning the story.

Readers should have been told promptly that an embedded reporter had helped frame a question that a soldier asked of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week in Kuwait, the reporter’s publisher says.

Military affairs reporter Edward Lee Pitts, who is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, said he worked with guardsmen after being told reporters would not be allowed to ask Rumsfeld any questions.

Pitts had sent an e-mail to co-workers back in Tennessee on Wednesday outlining his role.

“I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts,” he wrote. “Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld

He also said he went to the officer running the question and answer session “and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.”

The reporter’s e-mail also indicated Pitts was proud of his role in asking the question: “I just had one of my best days as a journalist today,” he wrote. He said it “felt good” that the question and answer received so much attention from other media.

That last paragraph says it all.

Which is why you defend Bush and McClellan on the issue of Jeff Gannon.

I have not defended Bush and McClellan on this issue. I have discussed weather Gannon is a reporter or not. I also listed the number of time he attended presidential briefings and the number of time he had asked the president a question. Which by the way was in response to the called on “Jeff,” often statement by phx8.

How do you know the question is a real one? Ahhh. Well, a real question is one that the person asks of their own initiative

How do we know that Gannon’s question was not a real one? As I said before, I think minus the “divorced themselves from reality” bit, it was a good question.

Bert,

This is as convoluted, as it is an exaggerated distortion. How does a credible, dire question about effectively protecting the lives of our soldiers, morph into an ‘editorial’?

From the Cambridge Dictionary

Editorialize - to express a personal opinion, especially when you should be giving a report of the facts only

News – objective information about current events printed in newspapers or broadcast by the media

Words have meaning and we need to use words in the proper context. Edward Pitts did not report objective information as he let people believe that the question was all the soldier’s. It obviously was not based on the communications Pitts had with coworkers in Tennessee.

What Pitts did was inject his own personal “opinion” when he coached the soldier on asking the question and coordinated with the person directing the questioning to insure the soldier would be called on. Instead of manipulating the situation, Pitts should have simply reported the facts. Or, he should have clearly stated in his story that there was coordination between the soldier, the person directing the event and him.

If he had done one of those two things, I would have no problem with the question that was asked. Just put the story in the proper context. Pitts has now put into question any “news” article he ever writes, especially when you read the final comments from his e-mail to his co-workers concerning this story.

Kirk is really good at dropping lines out of quotes that really change the texture of the message, like the soup lines thingy. Also, when the reported death toll of the American soldiers is higher than he’s comfortable with, lower the number. How much is the Pres paying you, Kirk?

I love how Kirk has turned into a discussion of Lee Pitts. If you ask me, Lee Pitts is another indication of the dishonesty of the administration. Pitts didn’t hide his role - he wrote a story about it, in fact. Rumsfeld had been asked the question before by the press - why don’t the troops have adequate armor - and lied, saying that everything possible was being done. But his “you go to war with army you’ve got” answer to the troops suggested he really didn’t care to even hear about the issue, and guess what ? everything possible was not being done. The armoring plants for Hummers were running undercapacity, ready to step up production - if only the army has asked.

And that’s a much bigger story, and a much bigger issue, than finding out exactly how the story broke.

The Red Teams obsession with Pitts’ role here is hypocritical - sure, support the troops, but not if that means embarassing Rummy, and certainly not if it casts any shadow on our Glorious Leader George W. Bush. In that case, f-ck the troops, let’s attack the messenger that brought this up.

Back to the original story - the problem with this administration is that they just don’t tell the truth. They classified, without reason, the embarrassing news about the many pre-9/11 warnings (which, by the way, also imply that some of Condi Rice’s statements under oath to Congress were extremely misleading) - hiding important facts from Congress and the voters. Indefensible.

They fudged numbers of Medicaid - hiding important facts from Congress and the voters. Indefensible.

They pay hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to reporters, like Williams and the others, to push their political agenda. Indefensible.

And now a no-name reporter from a web-only, no-revenue, just created “news source” somehow makes his way into the elite WH press core to ask questions like this one:

“Since there have been so many questions about what the president was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America’s racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else’s medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?”

Wow, what reporting! is that the way to squeeze vital information out of the WH or what? Turning a press conference into a circus like this is just another way of: hiding important facts from the voters. Indefensible.

Kirk-
Testing does not a good education system make. Before you can test a person, you must teach them, and No Child Left Behind fails on that account. It tries to reduce education to a standardizable system, the problem being that the things worth learning are complex, and not necessarily reducible to what will get you high marks on a test.

On the SUV exemption: Why are we making exemptions in the first place?

On Barnes: I know this may sound contrary, but isn’t a history of corruption exactly what would substantiate what he said? I mean, he is admitting to acts of corruption here, so a clean history would actually count as a liability in some ways. Just a thought. It is a legitimate gripe, but given the nature of the unit that Bush went into, it’s a gripe moderated by the well-known nature of the unit. There are many people who used their influence to push their way into the unit. Bush’s low entrance grades and the long waiting list make an entrance on his own merits doubtful

Also, I’ll point out to you that corruption and partisanship can be a motivation to tell the truth as much as to conceal it. I do not say you should trust such accusations on face value, especially when your rivals in our party make them. But regardless, you should find out for yourself, even if it means vulnerability.

It is true that early on, Bush worked hard in the unit. But his performance slipped as the war concluded, and records show he neither showed up enough for drills, nor made them up in good time. The documents that prove this are not in dispute.

As for the soldier’s question, the Q+A session itself was a Public Relations exercise in the first place, one in an administration that unfortunately exercises fanatical control about message. Questions like that aren’t getting to be asked. Bush is astroturfing his townhall get-together’s across the nation, and people from town leaders in the midwest to soldiers in Iraq are being excluded from Bush’s rallies, giving the illusion that America is more behind this president than he is. I celebrate that this reporter was able to get this question to that man, and force him to give some kind of account for what he did. And so did the soldiers themselves. This is the elephant in the room here: that you will not admit that this is a legitimate issue. Instead, you’re worried about whether somebody’s trying to make your leaders look bad. Who cares? If they aren’t doing their job, they deserve to look bad!

Isn’t that the point in the end? That when Rumsfeld says the unit is armored, he’s not covering up the fact that half the armor he’s speaking of, is that half that the soldier was objecting too? You’re so concerned about the formalities of how the question got asked, that you forget the importance of the question itself.

I do not assume evil motives only dishonest and self-promoting ones.

Dishonesty and self promotion are evil motives. I’m asking you to consider that perhaps the pleasure this reporter has in what he did was in the righteousness of the question. Haven’t you ever taken pleasure in having truth spoken to power? It is grating on the nerves that whenever we question our president and our officials that conservatives and Republicans question the morality of our motives. We will never be perfect on this account, but we do not deserve to have the worst be assumed of us anytime we oppose the political will of the Republican party.

As for Gannon, who was granted press access despite his public use of a pseudonym, despite failing to qualify for the more scrupulously accredited congressional press.

Additionally, his question was a massive softball. First of all it was misleading. It supposed that a belief in near term economic downturns contradicted a belief in the long term solvency of Social Security. Ironically, the dispute is about the unrealistically pessimistic estimate the Bush administration is using, one that requires economic downturns well into the latter days of this century. It’s the fallacy of the complex question. Additionally, you cannot separate the first parts from the last part, because ultimately they are used to set it up. The final question is “how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”.

In essence this is a reporter rendering a judgment and inviting the person answering the question to join in with him on it, something that Bush could sieze on to speak his mind about the issue. Imagine if Clinton had been handed this:

“How can you deal with people who continue to falsely accuse you of having an affair with Monica Lewinsky?”

You folks would be up in arms, and rightly so. What we need are questions that at least allow us to gauge our government officials and politician’s state of mind, if not their policies and plans. We don’t need questions whose sole purpose is allowing our politicians to just spiel their propaganda unfazed by tough interrogation.

Ray,

when the reported death toll of the American soldiers is higher than he’s comfortable with, lower the number

I must admit I have no idea what you are talking about with the statement above.

As for the “soup line thingy”, I copied that quote directly from the online newspaper. I did not “leave” anything out. In fact I was unaware of the “soup line thingy” untill phx8 pointed it out in his post and I went looking in other sources.

William,

Pitts didn’t hide his role

I beg your pardon? That is exactly what Pitts did. His own editor says that is what he did.

Your statement is another indication of the dishonesty of the neo-libs.

sure, support the troops, but not if that means embarassing Rummy, and certainly not if it casts any shadow on our Glorious Leader George W. Bush. In that case, f-ck the troops, let’s attack the messenger that brought this up.

If you would take a moment to get off your high horse, you will see that I have said in this line of posts as well as the posts where we discussed this same issue when the story broke, that I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with the question being asked. I will give you a few minutes to go back and actually read my posts…..

Now can we move on. As I have said ask the question. It needs to be answered. But, do not stage an event by coaching or collaborating with someone to ask a question, then coordinate with someone else to be sure that questioner is called upon and report it as news. Again words have meaning. News is objective information concerning the facts surrounding an event. What Pitts did was editorialize.

They pay hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to reporters, like Williams and the others, to push their political agenda. Indefensible.

Terry McAuliffe arranges meetings between people of questionable character and a Democratic Presidential Candidate’s staff in order to get forged documents into a mainstream media hit piece against his incumbent opponent days before an election. Indefensible.

Armstrong Williams should have been upfront concerning his advocacy. He should have been honest with his audience. You rant about the secrecy and hidden agenda of Williams but excuse it for Pitts. I guess we know where hypocrisy lays now.

Turning a press conference into a circus like this is just another way of: hiding important facts from the voters. Indefensible.

I find it hard to believe that two questions during 4 presidential briefings in nearly 2 years constitutes President Bush trying to hide important facts from the voters. That is unless the questions were so long that it took one year apiece to ask each. One question during a presidential briefing does not keep reporters from asking questions. Nor does it require the reporters to report the question or answers in their media outlet.

In my mind Gannon probably does not rise to the level of “reporter”. However, even veteran White House Reporters from mainstream media outlets were not ready to say his pass should be pulled. Just look at the quotes I posted above.

Stephen,

Before you can test a person, you must teach them

And before you can teach them you need to know what they understand and comprehend so you will know what to build on.

This is the elephant in the room here: that you will not admit that this is a legitimate issue. Instead, you’re worried about whether somebody’s trying to make your leaders look bad. Who cares? If they aren’t doing their job, they deserve to look bad!

What is it with you folks in the left column can you not read of just not comprehend. Let me try again.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE QUESTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKED. I AM SAYING THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPORTED AS NEWS.

AT BEST IT WAS AN EDITORIAL AND IF HE HAD PRESENTED IT AS SUCH I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

You know, maybe it is just me but both those statements seem to be fairly clear.

Haven’t you ever taken pleasure in having truth spoken to power?

Not if I have had to be dishonest to achieve it.

Additionally, his question was a massive softball. First of all it was misleading. It supposed that a belief in near term economic downturns contradicted a belief in the long-term solvency of Social Security. Ironically, the dispute is about the unrealistically pessimistic estimate the Bush administration is using

I beg to differ on these points. The question was not misleading, Democrats are saying that the economy is doing poorly and yet saying there is no problems with SS. Yet Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Kerry et. al. have spoken in the not too distant past about the pending financial crisis of SS. Now they say all is hunky dory. Which is it? I find it misleading for the Democrats to now be saying there is no pending financial crisis in SS just to prevent Bush from having a political victory. You see, if Bush wins on this issue, Democrats loose the FDR legacy.

How do you explain all these Democrats along with Alan Greenspan saying that SS needs to be reformed if it is just Bush lying and using unrealistic pessimistic estimates?

Which is the more prudent course of action to follow, go along making no changes in SS blissfully hoping for rosy outcomes in the future, or to plan for the worst now when any changes made would have a much smaller impact on each individual because of the length of time over which we would be spreading the burden? This is kind of like buying homeowners insurance. You pray you never have to use it but, you pay the premiums every month for 30 years spreading the burden over time so that you do not have to come up with a huge lump sum when disaster strikes.

If we continue along the path we are now on and 25 years down the road determine that hey maybe SS is in trouble, the impact on our children’s taxes not to mention our benefits are going to be greatly impacted. Why would you want to do something like that to your kids?

If we make changes now and the forecasted shortfalls never materialize we simply find ourselves in a much better economic situation with individuals holding larger sums of money with which to improve their standard of living in retirement. Why is that a bad thing?

“If we make changes now and the forecasted shortfalls never materialize we simply find ourselves in a much better economic situation with individuals holding larger sums of money with which to improve their standard of living in retirement. Why is that a bad thing?”

Kirk,
Making some changes now isn’t the problem. Throwing the whole system under the bus is.
So what Mr. Bush says is that by taking a small percentage of our SSI money out of our paychecks we will all be better off in the long run.
No one has told us how Mr. Bush plans to fix the system by taking money away from it. That sounds like a scam that we will all be paying for, and that doesn’t make any sense. What it sounds like is that there are some rich folks on Wall Street that would like to have more capital to play with.
How is that going to help SSI?
How is this going to help me?
Yes, there are people that are going to benefit from this, but it isn’t going to be Joe Public. He doesn’t have the time or the knowledge to babysit a stock portfolio.
The sharks are allready circling.

Rocky,

No one has told us how Mr. Bush plans to fix the system by taking money away from it.

How is that going to help SSI?

Basically this is a net sum zero move. The people who choose to participate in the individual accounts would be allowed to move 4% of the FICA Tax into the individual account. Their projected future benefits would then be reduced an equal amount. The returns on the individual accounts would be much greater than the roughly 2% return expected from the current system. Thus reducing the workers dependence on SS in the future.

How is this going to help me?

If you choose to participate, you would have more money in retirement. This would allow you to increase your standard of living, rely less on SS and if you choose leave money to your children or grandchildren.

but it isn’t going to be Joe Public. He doesn’t have the time or the knowledge to baby-sit a stock portfolio.

You don?t have to baby-sit a stock portfolio. That is the beauty of Equity Funds, you buy funds that consist of a large number of stocks, bonds, securities etc. The fund managers baby-sit the portfolio.

Will there be fund managers that make money off this? Without a doubt there will. However as with Mutual Funds, 401K?s or IRA?s the fund charge to individuals will be relatively low in the 0.5% to 1% range.

I can tell you that I would be willing to sign a contract with the SS Administration tomorrow relinquishing any claim to any future benefits or money I have paid into the system if they would just let me invest my future 12.4% FICA Taxes on my own.

Kirk:
“What is it with you folks in the left column can you not read of just not comprehend. Let me try again.”

Patronising and Rude.

“I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE QUESTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKED. I AM SAYING THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPORTED AS NEWS.”

1. The news was the fact that Pitt had to stoop to an unethical method to make sure that a question would actually be asked to an administration bent on controlling every and all messages.
2. The news was that the soldier didn’t care whether the question he was asking would land him in trouble with his superiors - because it was that important.
3. The news was the soldiers in the room were shocked for a split second before bursting into loud applause, because their unanswered question had actually managed to break through the stonewalling of the media by this administration.
4. The news was the fact that after that one question managed to get through, it gained national attention - and that was the only impetus that had been needed to get those soldiers the armor for their vehicles.

“AT BEST IT WAS AN EDITORIAL AND IF HE HAD PRESENTED IT AS SUCH I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.”

It was an editorial by a journalist who was sick of the press being stonewalled by the administration - and it was a very, very effective one.

>”Haven’t you ever taken pleasure in having truth spoken to
> power?”

“Not if I have had to be dishonest to achieve it.”

I think Pitt realized it was the ONLY WAY to achieve it - and that is a very sad state of affairs. Because this administration is so secretive, and so completely dishonest, Pitt had to stoop to a dishonest and unethical method as the only way to get at the truth. And it worked, his question not only got through, but ultimately the subject of uparmoring the vehicles was finally addressed for our troops.

What Pitt did was to show America how the administration has been controlling the press to avoid having to answer to We The People.
What the unmasking of Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallager and now, Jeff Gannon does is show just how very secretive this administration is, and just how crooked they are willing to be in order to keep control of the Message.

Adrienne,

Patronising and Rude.

Really, what do you call it when what you have written is distorted or ignored so that your position can be deliberately misconstrued? Because I think patronizing and rude would likely fit that pretty well.

You see, I had repeatedly stated that the question should be asked, and that I had no problem with the question as long as it is reported truthfully. And yet this is the response I get.

This is the elephant in the room here: that you will not admit that this is a legitimate issue.

Now do you get it or are you going to distort my position as well? Pitts should have reported the events surrounding the question in a truthful manner even his publisher agrees.

“Readers should have been told promptly that an embedded reporter had helped frame a question that a soldier asked of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week in Kuwait, the reporter’s publisher says.”

You call for Williams, Gallagher and Gannon to come clean, and triumph at their “unmasking”.
Yet with Phillips the ends justify the means and he is a hero to you. If you want ethical journalists then demand ethical journalists on both sides and in the middle.

I am willing to say that Williams, Gallagher were ethically required to give full disclosure. They did not which damages journalistic credibility. Are you willing to state that Phillips was ethically required to give full disclosure and that he damaged journalistic credibility?

And what about liberal activist Russell Mokhiber who attends the White House press briefings to make obscure anti-Bush political points. Recently, for example, he asked spokesman Scott McClellan whether President Bush violated one of the Ten Commandments by invading Iraq. Mokhiber, admits he has never taken a journalism class in his life and was denied a permanent White House press pass.

When will we hear you ranting about Mokhiber or will he be one of your heros as well?

“If you want ethical journalists then demand ethical journalists on both sides and in the middle.”

What I want is the TRUTH. And I believe it is what most of us want.
What I want is for the president and the administration to answer any and all questions on the fly - because that is how we may gage what they are doing, and how they are doing as leaders of the US. We will not find that out if they have planted fake reporters in order to deflect tough questions they don’t want to answer, or bribe real reporters to be their mouthpieces.
It would be nice to think that reporting the news can still be done ethically - but it has become glaringly clear that with this administration, being ethical will not get at the truth, and will not get our questions answered.
What the Pitt story made clear to me (sadly) was that when people act as unethically as this administration does, they might have a spitting chance at getting at the truth. Because by having a tough question thrown at them - especially when and where it is least expected since everything is usually pre-screened and pre-scripted for them, they are forced to finally answer to us, and to everything they’ve been trying so desperately to avoid.

Adrienne,

You have successfully avoided answering my direct question so I will try once again

I am willing to say that Williams, Gallagher were ethically required to give full disclosure. They did not which damages journalistic credibility. Are you willing to state that Phillips was ethically required to give full disclosure and that he damaged journalistic credibility?

What I want is the TRUTH. And I believe it is what most of us want.

You can have the truth and still have ethical reporting. All Phillips had to do was disclose in his report that he had worked with the soldier to compose the question and worked with someone to get the soldier called on to ask the question. Period. If he had done these two things you have your truth reported truthfully. Hell he may have even had a more compelling story if he had made full disclosure, because then he could have also written about how he felt he had to do all this manipulating to get Rumsfeld to answer such an important question.

“Are you willing to state that Phillips was ethically required to give full disclosure and that he damaged journalistic credibility?”

I am willing to state that under almost all other circumstances the man would be ethically required to give full disclosure, but that since he wasn’t dealing with ethical leaders, but instead was trying to get answers from those who:
Lied the country into an unnecessary war.
Didn’t go into that war with any kind of a plan after shock and awe.
Went in without enough troops.
Endangered those troops by not equipping them with enough armor.
Further endangered them by sanctioning the torture of questionable prisoners.
Think nothing of cutting the troops benefits during wartime.
All while always trying to control the media and the message.

Well, I’d say all bets are off regarding ethics - that whatever it takes to get at the truth, and to make them answer questions they are attempting to avoid, may be viewed as not only morally necessary, but downright heroically patriotic.
Does that answer your question sufficiently?

Adrienne,

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

Perfectly.

Your position is now very clear.

The ends justify the means. Do what ever is necessary to bring down a presidency. You are so blinded by your disdain for the president that it wouldn’t matter what the media was telling you as long as it was a negative for the administration you would stand up and cheer.

“The ends justify the means. Do what ever is necessary to bring down a presidency.”

No. I said that only in very narrow circumstances would I consider it necessary to be unethical in order to get at the truth - and I was acknowledging the fact that this situation almost always arises when one is dealing with those who willfully mislead and attempt to distort the truth.

This is even backed up by standard Journalism Ethics:
“Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public.”
And:
“Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.”

“You are so blinded by your disdain for the president that it wouldn’t matter what the media was telling you as long as it was a negative for the administration you would stand up and cheer.”

And you seem so blinded by naive loyalty to the president and his administration that it doesn’t seem to matter to you that they lie and mislead. I also notice that while many Republican’s do a lot of talking about how they support the troops, very often its nothing but hot air.

What an awful thread.

Back at the beginning—the blah blah “by day” yadda yadda “by night”—clearly beneath the standard that should be set by WB.

Subtle ad hominem is evident as well.

How about ad nauseum?

Adrienne,

This is even backed up by standard Journalism Ethics:

“Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public.”

I notice you left off the last sentence from that point in the Journalist Code of Ethics.

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.

The following two points also pertain to the Phillips story.

Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.

Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

Again, I will state that all Phillips had to do to report his story truthfully was to make a statement that he had collaborated with the Soldier to frame the question and coordinated with someone to have the Soldier called on to ask the question. Period. Maybe a total of two sentences.

Kirk
“I notice you left off the last sentence from that point in the Journalist Code of Ethics.”

Touché.
But truth is, I took my quote straight from my wallet! I have a little card of the code that one of my journalism professors gave me about fifteen years ago, and that last sentence isn’t there. But you’re right, it appears on the online version of the code I just looked at.

“Again, I will state that all Phillips”

You keep saying Phillips, but the reporters name is Lee Pitts.

“had to do to report his story truthfully was to make a statement that he had collaborated with the Soldier to frame the question and coordinated with someone to have the Soldier called on to ask the question. Period. Maybe a total of two sentences.”

I agree it is odd that he didn’t, especially since it wouldn’t have taken away from the impact of the soldier forcing Rumsfeld to answer a question he never expected - and one it was obvious he’d wanted to avoid. And after all, the story broke more on TV than it did in the press, so it didn’t really matter much at that point if he had helped the soldier to word his question.

I can only think of three reasons Pitts wouldn’t want to admit to it: Either because he is a very young reporter (have you ever seen his picture? he looks like a teenager) who didn’t believe it was all that important, or he thought it would make him look rather unprofessional to his editor, or is it perhaps that since he was an embedded reporter counting on those soldiers to keep him safe, did he wonder if his role in the story would end up getting Spc. Williams in trouble with his superiors - and thereby possibly endanger himself by becoming unpopular among the troops?

The Dem’s dirty little secret! Why do they want fellons to vote??? Read the Justice Dept Stats..
the prison population.. Blacks (90% dem’s )outnumber the white prisoners over 7 to 1 and the hispanics (65% dem’s ) 2 to 1.. I have yet to se