Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Personally, I don’t know exactly what the CNN guy has said, so I’m not defending him.

However, I do remember a story that struck me pretty hard by a blogger turned guardian reporter named Ghaith:
Ghaith’s Iraq blog:
http://geeinbaghdad.blogspot.com/

Ghaith’s article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1303807,00.html

Yesterday, sitting in the office, another photographer who was looking at my pictures exclaimed: “So the Arabiya journalist was alive when you were taking pictures!”

“I didn’t see the Arabiya journalist.”

He pointed at the picture of the guy with V-neck T-shirt. It was him. He was dead. All the people I had shared my shelter with were dead.

I personally don’t think the Americans were targeting journalists in this instance, although I do think it sounds like they indiscriminately fired at civilians.

The following story was also in the Al Jazeera documentary, where you got to see the journalist that was killed a few hours before the missiles hit:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/08/sprj.irq.media.hit/

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0%2C14173%2C1221918%2C00.html

Personally, I think the fact that Arab reporters are getting killed in such greater numbers than other reporters is probably because the soldiers don’t instantly distinguish them from the crowd. (Not because they are specifically targeted… although, I wouldn’t be surprised if an angry GI killed an Al Jazeera reporter, just because he hates the station, and he saw his chance).

However, I do think the death of Arab reporters is probably indicitave of the fact that U.S. soldiers are engaging in indiscriminate fire on civilians. (as witnessed first hand by Ghaith, and if you think Ghaith is anti-American, just do a search on his articles in the Guardian, and you’ll see he’s very fair).

For the record, I am not saying this indiscriminate fire on civilians is pervasive (nor am I saying it is not pervasive). I do not know how often it happens. But, given the circumstances of war, it’s not surprising that it does happen.

Also, for the record, when the Arab journalists have “accidentally” been killed by American gunfire, there has routinely been little or no investigation. So I’m not surprised that there’s suspicion out there.

I don’t think Ghaith’s situation was ever properly investigated, and I think it’s clear that innocent people were killed because the G.I.’s involved where extremely angry that some friends had been murdered, and took their revenge on whoever they felt like might have been involved. (If someone knows if it was investigated, I’d love to be wrong.)

I’d also love to see someone point me to a proper followup on why the missile strike on the Al Jazeera station happened.

In addition, if anyone can point me to the investigations on what happened when the other Arab journalists were killed, I’d like to see that too.

Julia

Eason Jordan claims he ws misquoted. Since it was an off-the-cuff remark, it is hardly worth anything.

Bill O’Reilly claimed he had the power to order the White House to “Destroy” someone.

Gannon was operating an online prostitute service of American Service Men.

Where is your condemnation of these guys?

Here’s more substantive info on why some people think journalists are being targeted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4908014-103550,00.html

And I think the guy that was forced to eat his shoe may have been Suheib Badr Darwish. I don’t know if he has been let out of Abu Ghraib yet, or if it was proven that he was beaten.

It could also be true that some Jazeera journalists are members of the insurgency, and so it is right for soldiers to target specific Jazeera journalists.

I think it is a fact that Sami al-Haj is being held at Guantanamo (an Al Jazeera journalist). Is he also a terrorist? I don’t know what the claims are against him. And then Salah Hassan and Suheib Badr Darwish were definitely at Abu Ghraib. (For good cause? Again, I don’t know).

So, it is certainly an interesting discussion we could have.

Julia

CNN lost all it’s credibility when it became the mouthpiece for the political left in America. It seems to be in a contest with MSNBC to determine which will become totally irrelevant as a source of news. Of late, CNN is winning that less than desirable prize.

Ted should sell it to Rupert… so Rupert can shut it down!

“Longstreet”

I just can’t believe this is what constitutes political debate on the right.

I’d love to see an article arguing that Bush’s back-seat driver Iran policy is the correct one, rather than silly crap like this.

Eason demonstrated integrity and responsibility when he resigned. No doubt, he believes his remarks to have been true according to his information sources. However, given how his remarks reflect his personal opinion as head of the news agency, he recognized that he had compromised the credibility of the organization he represented and he voluntarily accepted the responsibility for his action and resigned.

If only Bush and company had such integrity and sense of responsibility, 10’s of millions of Americans would have more confidence in our own government and its leadership.

CNN FOX News lost all it’s credibility when it became the mouthpiece for the political left right in America.

Eason and Dan Rather should join forces to start a new news group maybe called UNS-Unsubstantiated News Service. So much goes on that cannot be proved one way or another in the war theaters. One has to determine who has the track record of telling the truth. That is very hard to do today with all the spin on any item that pops up.

Julia,

You’re right, there is a related issue here worth exploring about the use of arab journalists who seem to be conveniently standing next to terrorists as they execute westerners and iraqi ‘infidels’. Who seem to be invited to bombings as if it were a press conference.

Aldous,

I know, liberal scandal is hardly ever worth mentioning for liberals. ‘Reporters’ from news agencies we’ve never heard of and from whom you would never accept as a news source anyway is. But THE head of CNN’s news division, nah… not worth mentioning.

Ref: “I just can’t believe this is what constitutes political debate on the right.”

It came to constitute political debate for the Political Right when the Main Stream Media dropped all pretense of impartiality and became the electronic, and print, voice of the Left.

“Longstreet”

Eric-
The fact that he resigned should cue you into something about the Mainstream Media: Opinions are not made paramount over journalism.

If the mainstream media was truly ideological, he might have remained. In fact, there wouldn’t have been many problems with his staying, provided he picked the right workplace.

But its not ideological. Sure people of all kinds of political bents can show up for work there, but they’re job is not to push opinions as much as report stories.

FOXnews does not make that distinction, overloading things with commentators and pundits. It is symptomatic of the conservative media that they are always putting message and viewpoint ahead of real journalism.

I know, you’re going to come back with Rather. Well, that scandal was never about Rather coming out in commentary or punditry and making such accusations. It was always about the quality of his factfinding and verification. In the end, he fell on his own sword, admitting the falsity of the documents when they could find a reliable source to allow them a graceful exit. That it continued to be and remained an issue of the facts indicates something about the so-called “liberal media”, something your side has ruthlessly exploited.

It’s unfortunate that this willingness to admit error has become the tool by which Republicans have torn at traditional journalism, proclaiming its weakness, because the Conservative media itself has indulged in far worse practices in dealing with the facts. There are books full of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly’s factual errors, and I remember the FOX news people jumping the gun on chemical weapons finds several times. They accept the feed of any number of conservative think-tanks, and gleefully distribute Republican talking points through the media, uncritically accepting “facts” that are nothing more than spin.

Only the conservative media must be so demonstrative in declaring it’s balance. Other media outlets call themselves trusted, first on the scene, etc. Only Fox News bases its prestige on being balanced and unbalanced. Only Bill O’Reilly must declare that he has a No-Spin Zone. Most organization would assume political balance and a resistance to spin. Why must the conservative media boast so much of such things. It’s almost like the old Chris Rock joke. Fair and Balanced? Of course you’re supposed to be fair and balanced, you low expectation-having dummies!

Unfortunatley, they are overwhelmingly biased, and unwilling to admit that’s a bad thing, saying everybody else does it at the same time they implicitly crow their superiority on the matter.

That the CNN news editor resigned is a sign that his employers considered serious bias and outlandish conspiracy theories a minus in regards to reporting. Your media has no such standards. They only serve to perpetuate Republican power.

Stephen,

Fox News touts “Fair and Balanced” because it believes there is large audience believes CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN are NOT fair and balanced. If saying anything that resembles a positive story for the Republican party makes Fox “a right-wing mouthpiece”, then I guess they are guilty. Meanwhile, CNN continues to lose market-share.

Also note that Fox News if filled with broadcasters that are making obvious editorial and personal comments - nobody thinks Bill O’Reilly is just an anchorman reporting the news. Dan Rather, on the other hand, is supposed to be a neutral, unbiased, anchor. Big difference, and American conservatives are obviously sick of the liberal slant of “unbiased” network reporting.

http://www.resonant.org/node/425 - 12 names.
Terry Lloyd, Hussein Othman, Fred Narac, Taras Protsyuk, Jose Couso, Tariq Ayoub, Mazen Dana, Ali Abdel Aziz, Ali al-Khatib, Assad Kadhim, Hussein Saleh, and Dhia Najim.

However, I agree with the other posts here that Eason was right to resign. If CNN is going to be truly objective, it can’t have someone talking unobjectively. I think that shows that CNN has some standards.

However, if anyone has watched headline news lately, and seen the stupid “people magazine” type crap they do, I don’t know why this is held up as the pinnacle of CNN stupidity. I don’t watch CNN. Not because of its leftist bias (which frankly, I don’t see). But because I’m sick of the Michael Jackson case, and I could give a crap about the newest “up and coming” band. CNN is a glamour magazine first and foremost. Any left bias that it may have had has been drowned in the pursuit of Michael Jackson’s underwear.

I watch the NewsHour on PBS and 60 minutes. Everything else is just advertising.

However, the question of whether those journalists were murdered is an important topic. I’m not surprised that none of the news organizations are covering it. Because you know what? It’s actually news.

If there was really a left bias on TV, the stations would have investigated Eason’s “crazy” claims.

The fact that people were incarcareted for two years in Guantanamo, and now have been proven innocent, is also news. I don’t see that on CNN either.

I do, however, see a lot on whether or not the no-carb diet will work for me.

Julia

However, the question of whether those journalists were murdered is an important topic. I’m not surprised that none of the news organizations are covering it. Because you know what? It’s actually news. - Julia

It’s possible that there’s nothing to substantiate these claims, at least nothing unclassified. So while there are rumors, without a quote, papers, something - there’s nothing to report.

And I agree with the comments about CNN and FOX - occasionally they have decent reporting, but mostly it’s CNN doing its Infotainment and FOX spinning everything rightwards. It’s unfortunate, but happily there are lots of news sources that care less about ratings and sensationalism, and more about integrity and performing true journalism.

Brett:
The average Redneck Conservative can’t tell the difference between an Opinion Show and the News. When people see Sean Hannity browbeating the Parent of the woman who died in Iraq, they start thinking that Parent did something wrong. That’s the level Fox News is at now.

Stephen,

The difference is that the liberal media call themselves moderate and unbiased whether it’s on the opinion page or straight news. In fact you can’t tell the difference most times. It is Conservative media which is honest and upfront about opinion content in the shows that are such.

RatherGate is a perfect example. Here you have a partisan and false witchhunt which Dan Rather still refuses to say was wrong.

It was always about the quality of his factfinding and verification. In the end, he fell on his own sword, admitting the falsity of the documents when they could find a reliable source to allow them a graceful exit.

All I can say is, good luck with that. There was no factfinding, no verification, only the asumption, because 98.9% of the newsroom staff were liberal, that the story was true. This is the real story and the reason it makes a difference: total partisanship, with no recognition of that fact, and a complete refusal to acknowledge it even when it is this egregious. How about some of that accountability you’re so fond of?

Dan Rather still maintains that every about the story is true, they just couldn’t document it. How’s that for impartial?

So much for standards or accountability for the left, that’s a concept only to be applied to the Bush Administration.

Aldous,

The average Redneck Conservative can’t tell the difference…

If you are seeking the truth, you should always question your assumptions.

Also, for the record, when the Arab journalists have “accidentally” been killed by American gunfire, there has routinely been little or no investigation. So I’m not surprised that there’s suspicion out there.

Julia, do you have any evidence of this or are you just talking out of your ass?

Please don’t use the blogosphere to spread rumors. It’s already difficult enough to distinguish the truth. If you can’t find a reliable source for a statement as “fact” then PLEASE preface it with something that identifies it as an opinion.

I for one have never heard FOX or CNN claim that they are unbiased.

Eric as I understand it, Eason Jordan made these statements, not CNN. Do you have any concrete evidence that his personal views colored CNN’s news coverage? For that matter, do you have any actual proof that Rather investigated the whole “Daddy got W out of Vietnam” story less than he would have if Bush was a Democrate? Or are you just throwing around personal attacks and random allegations for the hell of it?

Is there any difference between Jordan’s claim that the US is targeting journalists, and YOUR completely unsubstantiated claim that Rather pushed his story for polical reasons?

Also, btw, I can’t help noticing that at least one of the comments you contemptuously dismiss as biased is true: the US has in fact killed a number of journalists by “friendly fire” (I can’t say if the number is 10 or not, but it’s certainly more than 1 or 2) and there are in fact reports of reporters being tortured (see Julia’s link). What are you outraged about - the fact that he, as a private person repeated facts you’d rather not hear? Also, none of Chris Cramer’s quotes are remotely objectionable - journalists certainly are being targeted by terrorists and others (as you say yourself) and “armed groups” is certainly not synonymous with “US troops”.

In short, Eric, I find this a typical Red-Team propoganda piece. Hearsay evidence from Barney Franks (I wouldn’t have thought you’d put so much faith in him!) are used to justify itriolic attacks on the whole main stream media. Who should we believe instead - you and the right-wing pundritry - the ones that take cash payoffs from the government?

Brett-
The question is whether this perceived imbalance is theirs or the news organization’s. I think it is their bias, and FOXnews only serves to cynically give junkies of that political view their fix.

It is a weakness only to accept the party’s propaganda. There are weak Republicans and weak Democrats out there. The real strong folks in these parties are those who find out things for themselves. The moderate media (the majority of journalists believe themselves politically moderate) serves this function to various degrees, PBS and others to a greater degree.

My insistence on the facts is my insistence on being given the power to interpret for myself. I don’t need to be pundit fed. I need to hear experts who know their stuff. I need to hear from moderates in the party who’ve got other ideas. This business of partisan hackery only serves power and the powerful. Our politicians should be earning their good regard through policy, not P.R. Quit worrying about the Liberal media, start worrying about the quality of information you’re getting from your leaders. The more they keep from you, the more undue power they have over you. I think it was Madison who said that knowledge will always rule ignorance. Do you want to be ruled, or lead?

Eric-
Partisan? Prove that politics had anything to do with Rather’s decisions. You simply assume it. You say it was a false witchhunt, even though the preponderance of the evidence supports charges that Bush was absent for his training. And no, I don’t mean the forged documents, or even Marion Carr Knox’s words.

There are documents with unchallenged authenticity that show that Bush did not show up or make up sufficient drills to have met the requirements that the Air National Guard had for drills. Of course, as long as you’re attacking Rather, the only documents that matter were the ones he got wrong. The story as a whole passes you by. All that matters is making this story the liberal media’s fault rather than Bush’s. But it is Bush’s fault, and the facts support that. He did in fact coast through the remainder of his service after a good start.

There’s even explanations and excuses offered for those missed days, talk about understandings reached that we have to take their words for. Go back and look through the responses of your president and his press secretary. You might find them explaining things they elsewhere deny they did.

What you don’t realize is that Rather has admitted the mistake, and has suffered damage to his reputation for it, damage that is going to haunt a possibly abbreviated end to his career. What you don’t acknowledge is that those responsible have been let go, and there is certainly one source (Burkett) nobody’s going to touch with a ten-foot pole. Don’t you realize that a truly liberal media would have just shrugged things off and not applied consequences? You simply don’t get this, because you want Rather punished for being a Liberal more than you want him punished for being wrong. You would have been claiming bias regardless of how the authenticity of documents turned out.

I’m more concerned with the truth of what went on, than ascribing motivations. Motivations, I feel, come through better through the facts of the matter, than they do from first glance. It’s easy to generalize about these things, and miss the actual mix of things as a result.

In the end, accountability was applied. We accepted the evidence when it was clear it went against us, and wasn’t just some quibble brought up by partisans perhaps unconcerned with the real evidence.

In the end, Rather had a witness, qualified and at the center of the affair, who could corroborate. It is that witness, in fact, that brought about that very accounting that would end the careers of so many involved, even as she corroborated the document’s contents. Don’t you see the beautiful irony of it all? For liberals this is an acceptable end. The facts won out. The profession won out. Misbehavior was punished, and falsehoods removed.

But, no, for you that’s not enough. You have to win completely, instead of celebrating the small victories that real life offers. You have to overlook all the inconvenient facts, and set the story as a battle between good president Bush and the evil journalists who tried to bring him down. You don’t see that the systems of accountability in liberal philosophy run both ways. If that weren’t the case, you couldn’t use them against us, any more than Saddam could have used the innocent dead in his country to embarrass us in ours.

Meanwhile, your people seem to operate without shame. What about holding Rush Limbaugh accountable for being a drug addict? O’Reilly accountable for lying about being working class? FOXnews for jumping the gun on Chemical Weapons? Gannon and Novak for accepting classified documents from somebody in the White House revealing the identity of a NOC agent? How about holding Bush accountable for the mistakes of his administration? How about holding the GOP accountable for the deficit?

How about holding people accountable for misleading quotations of sources?

I mean, in the end, we do practice accountability in the Democratic party, even as we ask it of others. But your party? Holding people accountable is less a tradition for you than a tactic. In the end, that will erode support for the Republican party, as people lose their patience with screwups that are explained but not resolved by fevered partisan cries of bias.

Eric Simonson:
You’re nobody reporter Gannon was given access to Valerie Plame’s Records. The White House compromised National Security to a worthless Hack with a penchance for pimping soldiers.

Does anyone actually know what Eason said? I’ve never seen a quote or the context. Just a buncha yappin’ by the wing-nuts.

Here’s an objective look at this distraction from far more important issues.

William,

It’s your contention, then, that soldiers are purposely killing journalists? Targeting them? Shooting them BECAUSE they are journalists? Run with it. I wish CNN would. It is odd that they are not, if, they in fact have proof of that as they say they do. Obviously, for Jordon to back off immediately and have to resign, they know it isn’t true.

This is what Eason Jordon said. If Barney Frank, surely not a witness biased against left wing journalists, actually heard what Eason Jordon said I don’t believe that would qualify as ‘hearsay’. I’m not a lawyer but I believe hearsay is secondhand information. When I tell you about what Barney Frank said, that’s hearsay. When Barney Frank tells you, and it is his statement in quotes, it’s eyewitness testimony.

I kind of get a kick out of the blue column here. There is no evidence, contrary to liberal ideology, that will be countenanced. Eyewitness? Doesn’t matter, unless we hear and see it ourselves, it didn’t happen.

The fact is that these news organizations may be hiring the terrorists themselves, or ‘journalists’ very close to them to get the pictures they do. Reuters in particular seems to have pictures of executions that had to have been done with the terrorists consent. Are these the same ‘journalists’ that he is talking about? Perhaps the reason CNN would rather have the guy step down rather than fully explore this is that the facts might not paint the same black and white picture Jordon tried to paint of ‘journalists’ being targeted.

This is the same Eason Jordon who admitted that all throughout Saddam’s reign of terror CNN did not report the full extent of the tortures they saw and knew of so that they could, “maintain access”. How’s that for journalistic integrity?

Is it just easier for the left to believe soldiers kill indescriminantly? That they are worse than the terrorists?

Aldous,

Gannon outed Plume?

Stephen,

Partisan? Prove that politics had anything to do with Rather’s decisions.

…the preponderance of the evidence supports charges that Bush was absent for his training.

Then why forge documents?

You prove my point, Stephen. The left believes it’s true. How could it not be true, since ‘we’ all believe it is? That’s how Rathergate happened. If there had been even ONE Eric Simonson, i.e. any non-liberal journalist in the chain of production on this story, there would have been some balance and more rigorous fact checking. Instead, they ran with obviously forged and fraudulent documents because they all believed the story was true regardless of the evidence they had.

There is just as much evidence that Bush was AWOL as there is that John Kerry got medals for self-inflicted wounds. At least the Swift Boat Vets were actually there.

There are documents with unchallenged authenticity that show that Bush did not show up or make up sufficient drills to have met the requirements that the Air National Guard had for drills.

Unfortunately, this is entirely wrong. The facts are that Bush fulfilled his requirements and received an honorable discharge. I don’t believe the left has any interest in the facts beyond what they want to believe. It’s unfortunate, but partisanship trumps truth on the left more often than you seem to be willing to admit.

What you don’t realize is that Rather has admitted the mistake, and has suffered damage to his reputation for it, damage that is going to haunt a possibly abbreviated end to his career.

Dan Rather admitted it? Hmm. I seem to recall something quite different. When some were questioning these documents what did Dan Rather say? “Partisan smear attacks. These documents are real!”

“Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people, including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story.”

Accountability…

In the end, accountability was applied. We accepted the evidence when it was clear it went against us, and wasn’t just some quibble brought up by partisans perhaps unconcerned with the real evidence.

Here’s the danger of this kind of accountability. Dan Rather would not have admitted anything, had the evidence not been so obvious and conclusive, even then it took weeks. If not for the blogs that brought this to light Dan Rather may have brought down a President. Plainly the goal of the story. Certainly the goal of his producer, Mary Mapes.

For liberals this is an acceptable end. The facts won out. The profession won out. Misbehavior was punished, and falsehoods removed.

Of course the left is satisfied. The liberal bias is still in place. No need to dwell on the past or learn any lessons from this. Let’s just move on. Business as usual. There are plenty of new stories to slant, evidence to conjure, accusations to throw. US troops, for instance, are targeting journalists in Iraq. Whoops, there’s that bias again. At the top too. No big deal, you say, let’s move on.

I don’t believe the left right has any interest in the facts beyond what they want to believe. It’s unfortunate, but partisanship trumps truth on the left right more often than you seem to be willing to admit.

Ho hum. The fact here is, you have no idea what Eason said nor any idea what the context was.

Eric,

With the resignation of Eason Jordan and the Churchill manipulation ushered out of the spotlight, the Right (and the media) finds the latest Gannon revelations staring them in the face.

As the justoneminute blog link showed, you’re in the unenviable position of having to ignore the credible questions of how such a shady character was even allowed into the White House, while having to focus on the salacious, deviant homosexual revelations you’ve indicted the Left blogsphere is using to personally destroy an already disgraced impostor.

Eric-
You must not have read the article, because off of criticizing AP you do precisely the thing that the article raises concerns about: you level an unsubstantiated charge.

Fact is, we are not held to the factual standards that big news organizations are. It is a legitimate concern that our mistakes could turn the legitimate check and balance that we can perform into an abuse of power. That could be problematic for us, because one big libel student regarding political blogs could make those who host the blogs on their servers nervous about liability.

There are legitimate concerns out there about the dependability of eyewitness accounts. People sometimes only pay attention to that they want to hear. You are a prime example of this yourself. I’ve had to follow up on the articles you quote from in order to get the full picture. Maybe you just didn’t think the other details were important. Regardless, I found they were. People also can be influenced by after the fact coverage or pressure placed upon them by others Some kind of record, some kind of other evidence needs to be taken into account before the kneejerk reactions of partisans on all sides become the main determinant of what “truth” gets out. This is people’s lives and careers here, and we should be right first and foremost.

You should do us all a favor and provide you with the sources that support your charges concerning access. Otherwise, there’s no way to judge the quality, high or low, of your accusations.

On the next post:

Then Why forge Documents?

First, you imply that Rather and Co. are the authors. Do you know something we don’t? Because I have not seen one credible report that names them as such. Maybe your conservative principles have given you psychic powers. Otherwise, I don’t see how this is anymore than a product of your substantial bias.

Then you talk about putting someone like you in the chain of custody of this evidence. That’s the last thing I’d do, given your standards on quotation. You say obviously forged. Maybe obvious to somebody who doesn’t believe any ill thing about the president, but to the rest of us we need better evidence than faith in the president.

Yes, there needed to be somebody in there challenging the evidence, I’m just skeptical that you or somebody like you would do anything but skew the error in the other direction. We need improved standards rather than political mirroring.

There is just as much evidence that Bush was AWOL as there is that John Kerry got medals for self-inflicted wounds. At least the Swift Boat Vets were actually there.

Most of them weren’t. Only a handful actually knew Kerry. Many of those, though, supported Kerry over the years, or made statements at the time that they would contradict years later. There is in fact more evidence to support Kerry’s admirable service than there is to support his accusers

Unfortunately, this is entirely wrong. The facts are that Bush fulfilled his requirements and received an honorable discharge.

You’re half right. He did recieve an honorable discharge. But receiving a dishonorable discharge was rare, even in the case of certain court-martials. But the evidence, the documentation, on Bush’s Drills is that he didn’t show up as required and he didn’t make up missed drills in a timely fashion. But don’t take my word for it Read This article at U.S. News and World Report on the subject. That article is my basis for reaching the conclusion in question.

Dan Rather admitted it? Hmm. I seem to recall something quite different. When some were questioning these documents what did Dan Rather say? “Partisan smear attacks. These documents are real!”

Dan Rather did admit the documents were false in the end. Or was that whole report with Marion Carr Knox a figment of the national imagination. Of course, I won’t insult your intelligence as you have mine by claiming you never heard him refusing to back down in the face of the partisan bloggers, but jeez, weren’t those partisan bloggers? I seem to recall that this was a big to-do with all your conservative bloggers, and that they were the driving force. What dignity would journalist have if at the first sign of doubt from obviously biased bloggers they folded. The guy is a professional and he has some pride in that, and he didn’t admit fault until evidence could support no other conclusion. To wait for conclusive, compelling evidence in journalism is not a sin, but a demonstration of professionalism.

Of course the left is satisfied. The liberal bias is still in place. No need to dwell on the past or learn any lessons from this. Let’s just move on. Business as usual. There are plenty of new stories to slant, evidence to conjure, accusations to throw. US troops, for instance, are targeting journalists in Iraq. Whoops, there’s that bias again. At the top too. No big deal, you say, let’s move on.

Look, you can’t remove biases. As long as there are human beings in charge of the media, there is bias. This is a question of professionalism, in the end. If you have a problem with factual errors, complain about factual errors If you have a problem with professional misconduct or lax standards, as Rather and Co. admittedly demonstrated in this incident, talk about that.

Of course, that requires evidence of misconduct. That requires you to actually prove your charges that the story was distorted in such a manner, and of course that’s inconvenient if you simply want a standard response anytime the media doesn’t field friendly stories on your behalf. The solution to this is not a balance of percieved or real excesses by additional excess by those who have different biases, but instead an all around committment to reporting centered on facts, evidence, standards. Two wrongs do not make a right, and lies from from the other side are no antidote for other lies. If your commitment is to the truth, it cannot be to your party alone- it must be to standards and professionalism on all sides. And if you haven’t paid attention lately, your side has plenty of problems to be resolved itself. So, if you are serious, you will go after the excesses of your side’s bias.

Should I hold my breath, or are you capable of suprising me?

George W. Bush may be very agressive and sometimes cocky, but at least he has made a very radical change when it comes to immoral issues.

He has passed the Partial-Birth Abortion act, forever removing the horrible practice of killing children mere hours before he/she is born

He also is a Christian, which I am also. In the Bible it says that god will appoint leaders to ‘sweep away all those who oppose God’s people. Right now, it is these Muslims are DEFINTELY the enemy of his people (Israel)

Bert,

You’ll notice that I am responding directly to you once again.

As the justoneminute blog link showed, you’re in the unenviable position of having to ignore the credible questions of how such a shady character was even allowed into the White House, while having to focus on the salacious, deviant homosexual revelations you’ve indicted the Left blogsphere is using to personally destroy an already disgraced impostor.

I need you to clarify this because it’s sounds confusing to me. Who is focusing on salacious deviant homosexual relations? and indicting the left blogosphere?

…how such a shady character was even allowed into the White House,

This seems to be an odd charge in light of the liberal view that to NOT let someone ask questions of the President would be a violation of their first amendment rights.

Perhaps the White House looks upon the entire press corp as shady characters, thus one shady character is just like any other.

He also is a Christian, which I am also. In the Bible it says that god will appoint leaders to ‘sweep away all those who oppose God’s people. Right now, it is these Muslims are DEFINTELY the enemy of his people (Israel)

That was likely the most disturbing statement I’ve heard that wasn’t from a movie. Separation of church and state is never more important than when you’re talking about war. Can you imagine if America declared war on anyone who wasn’t Christian?

And if you’re going to attempt to misquote obscure phrases from the bible to justify your ends, try this one, it works without the thous and thys:

“Don’t kill.”

I thought Bush was the Antichrist.

Eric-
Bush’s rallies are supposed to show popular support for his plans. He invites leaders from supposedly grassroots organizations to show popular support for his policies.

But if the audiences are screened for political loyalty and the grassroots support is from organizations supported by thinktanks, then it’s only disguised propaganda.

Question is, what would happen if Bush had to deal with unfiltered audiences and real grassroots organizations. Why does Bush fear an organic, unaffected audience? Why does the GOP need to manufacture consent when it’s sooo on top of the will of the American people?

Can Bush really sell his policies to the average person? Such revelations cast doubt on that, and help to solidify the image of Bush as a pathological liar hiding behind a mask of earnest honesty, which is part of what generates such intense loathing about the man.

“disguised propoganda”?

Aren’t all political rallies orchestrated? 1,000 people just don’t show up to protest the war in Iraq without some organization.

We need an independent press to make sure that the powerful government cannot just feed us only their propoganda, but the press should also show the same skepticism of non-government (or protest) events. Oh, and by the way, the independent press should also be just as skeptical of Democrat administrations. And if the networks and CNN won’t fill that side of the equation, then Fox has provided a valuable service.

Of course, good conservatives complement their Fox News viewing with 6 hours of Rush and Hannity on the radio so they get the full story (ha ha!).

SWEET! It’s about time that the BIAS of the media is shoved to the forfront, for all the world to see.

Damn Stephen you’re long-winded! Question: What did Dan Rather report regarding Clinton’s draft-dodging?

Eric, you said:

It’s your contention, then, that soldiers are purposely killing journalists? Targeting them? … Is it just easier for the left to believe soldiers kill indescriminantly? That they are worse than the terrorists?

My answer is - WTF? when did I say that?

I said:

- aside from Eason’s remarks, if that’s what he actually said and meant, all of the quotes your gave us have innocuous interpretations. Many journalists have been killed by US fire (so have many US and British troops). Journalists are targeted (by terrorists, and quite possibly other “armed forces” in the world).

- There’s no tape or transcript of Eason’s comments, and no memos, so aren’t Barney Frank’s comments just EXACTLY the same sort of evidence of Bush’s plan-to-get-out-of-Vietnam that you Reds scoffed at in “Rathergate”?

- Even if you accept Eason’s statements, CNN’s new bias doesn’t follow logically - it’s just unsubstantiated slander. Just like Eason’s comments.

I know it’s hard, Eric, but please consider a logical response next time, instead of just putting words in my mouth. Giving your debating opponent a chance to just repeat his charges it rarely an effective technique.

Speaking of things you don’t see in Fox News…

White House Turns Tables on Former American POWs
Gulf War pilots tortured by Iraqis fight the Bush administration in trying to collect compensation.
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer

February 15, 2005

WASHINGTON � The latest chapter in the legal history of torture is being written by American pilots who were beaten and abused by Iraqis during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And it has taken a strange twist.

The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The rationale: Today’s Iraqis are good guys, and they need the money.

The case abounds with ironies. It pits the U.S. government squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva Convention.

Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.

But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says.

“It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us on this,” said retired Air Force Col. David W. Eberly, the senior officer among the former POWs.

(more)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-pow15feb15,0,5633055,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

William,

“…when did I say that?”

I asked that because 1) you seem to have a problem with believing Jordon said this, and 2) your defence is that soldiers are killing ‘journalists’. Just trying to get things straight here. I’d like to know if your position is the same as Jordon’s that’s all.

I can’t help noticing that at least one of the comments you contemptuously dismiss as biased is true: the US has in fact killed a number of journalists by “friendly fire” (I can’t say if the number is 10 or not, but it’s certainly more than 1 or 2) and there are in fact reports of reporters being tortured (see Julia’s link).

William, you’re stretching the bounds of credulity here. All of the Blue Column’s posts are based on less ‘evidence’ than what has been reported about Eason Jordon’s statements. Let’s put it this way, if President Bush had a said something over-the-top in a ‘private’ speech for which we had no video or transcript but only what several congressman on both sides of the aisle who were present said the President said, your burden of ‘proof’ would be met. I’m not sure why you would want to pretend Jordon didn’t say these things.

…all of the quotes your gave us have innocuous interpretations.

Eason Jordon did not say what is reported because you don’t have a video or transcript? Have you wondered why they don’t just release the video or transcript to dispel once and for all that he didn’t say it?

I know it’s hard, Eric, but please consider a logical response next time,

C’mon William, you can do better than that.

The comment was an off-the-cuff remark. I doubt anyone bothered to record it. For that reason, there is no way to determine what was said or not said. Anymore than eyewitnesses could say the same thing about an event. It all depends on your point of view.

Stephen,

re: unsubstantiated charges about hiring terrorists and their cronies as ‘journalists’

Unsubstantiated? yes. Completely uncoroborated? Not exactly. When you look at Reuters photos that are taken of terrorists executing Iraqis in the street in Fallujah, you’ve got to wonder, who took these pictures? And why do they say copyright Reuters on them? Was the execution a planned event? Did the ‘journalist’ just happen to be walking by? Do any western journalists go into fallujah to take pictures? Questions. You know, like journalists digging for the truth, except that in this case the journalists are the ones leaving out alot of information.

Has it ever occured to anyone on the left where the press gets pictures of every bombing? Of burning cars as they explode?

There are legitimate concerns out there about the dependability of eyewitness accounts. People sometimes only pay attention to that they want to hear.

Let’s see, several congressman, reporters, the moderator, Gergen, who worked for the Clinton White House… you’re right Stephen, these are unreliable witnesses. We shouldn’t believe anything they say they heard with their own ears. They only pay attention to what they want to hear.

You’re right:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
David Gergen, (Editor U.S. News & World Report, Harvard University professor, Advisor to President Clinton)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
Brett Stephens, (Wall Street Journal Reporter)

These people are all incapable of being unbiased and impartial in relating what Mr. Jordon may or may not have said.

You are a prime example of this yourself. I’ve had to follow up on the articles you quote from in order to get the full picture. Maybe you just didn’t think the other details were important. Regardless, I found they were.

…You should do us all a favor and provide you with the sources that support your charges concerning access. Otherwise, there’s no way to judge the quality, high or low, of your accusations.

We disagree on many things. But I have never taken anyone’s quotes out of context and essentially changed the meaning of what they said. I take this somewhat personally. It amounts to a charge of lying.

Two people can read the same thing and have two interpretations of what is said, just because you disagree with my understanding or interpretation does not mean that the ‘facts’ are different.

Your opinion of ‘context’ not withstanding I always provide the full link to the quote in full expectation that you will follow it and read it in context with the rest of what is available. DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR because you disagree with my opinion/evaluation of what someone meant.

First, you imply that Rather and Co. are the authors. Do you know something we don’t? Because I have not seen one credible report that names them as such.

Mary Mapes was told by some of the experts they hired that the documents were likely fraudulent. Does that change equation a bit? Look at the report CBS itself put out to cover their butts, it says, among other things that the document examiners raised all the same red flags that were raised about these document after they were used on the segment. CBS Report

Try page 116 of the pdf:

Emily Will:

• Will could not determine that the signatures matched based on the samples she had been provided;
• Will could not opine on the initials (August 1, 1972 memorandum, which was used in the September 8 Segment) because there was no basis for a comparison;
• The fact that the documents were multi-generational copies made it difficult to
  analyze them;
• The font was troublesome, including the superscript ‘th’;
• There was no city, state or zip code indicated in the return address of the June 24,
  1973 memorandum; and
• Will did not think that these documents could have been prepared in 1972 and
  believed that they must have been prepared using a word processor.

And document examiner Linda James, page 117 of the pdf:

Miller said that when she told Mapes about James’ call, Mapes responded, ‘Enough about the [expletive] ‘th’.’ Miller recalled that Mapes then said that James had already told her that there was not enough information or enough documents to do her work and that James had also deferred to Matley. Miller advised the Panel that James had not said anything to her about a deferral to Matley. In addition, James told the Panel that she did not tell Mapes that she would ‘defer’ to Matley and said that she did not even know what Matley’s opinions were prior to the broadcast.

Keep reading. In short, they knew that these documents were likely not real. But they ‘meshed’ so well with their version of the truth that they were good enough. No, you’re right Stephen, no bias there. Just the facts.

Then you talk about putting someone like you in the chain of custody of this evidence. That’s the last thing I’d do, given your standards on quotation.

Once again, a personal attack. Forget about me. Any conservative. Anyone of NON-LIBERAL persuasion. An Independent maybe. Anyone who wasn’t already affected by BDS. (Bush Derangement Syndrome.)

We need improved standards rather than political mirroring.

Except we don’t get there with the, ‘let’s move on’, ‘nothing to see here’, sweep the liberal bias under the rug attitude.

There is in fact more evidence to support Kerry’s admirable service than there is to support his accusers

It’s too bad Kerry would never release all of his military records. Did he get an honorable discharge?

You’re half right. He did recieve an honorable discharge. But receiving a dishonorable discharge was rare, even in the case of certain court-martials. But the evidence, the documentation, on Bush’s Drills is that he didn’t show up as required and he didn’t make up missed drills in a timely fashion. But don’t take my word for it Read This article at U.S. News and World Report on the subject. That article is my basis for reaching the conclusion in question.

Here you go. Bush admitted that he didn’t show up for drills. That’s not the same as being awol. The documents show that Bush made up all the required hours he needed. End of story.

It’s unfortunate that you refuse to see all the facts and focus only on what you want to. Even as you accuse everyone else of the same thing.

I seem to recall that this was a big to-do with all your conservative bloggers, and that they were the driving force. What dignity would journalist have if at the first sign of doubt from obviously biased bloggers they folded. The guy is a professional and he has some pride in that, and he didn’t admit fault until evidence could support no other conclusion. To wait for conclusive, compelling evidence in journalism is not a sin, but a demonstration of professionalism.

Except that they already had the ‘evidence’ that these documents were fake before anyone else ever saw them. It was only partisan blindness, and a chance to strike a huge political hit on the President in ‘the most important election of our lifetime’. C’mon Stephen, you’re tilting at windmills here.

If your commitment is to the truth, it cannot be to your party alone- it must be to standards and professionalism on all sides. And if you haven’t paid attention lately, your side has plenty of problems to be resolved itself. So, if you are serious, you will go after the excesses of your side’s bias.

Should I hold my breath, or are you capable of suprising me?

When my boys are wrong, I say they are wrong. There’s alot more diversity in the GOP than you like to admit. If you recall, I have criticized Bush as well as other Republicans on social programs and the budget. I have vigorously defended him about foreign policy because I agree with it. I will not, nor will I ever, take a position just to be ‘independent’ or ‘moderate’.

That said, how can you ask me to go after Republicans when you do not think that the failings of liberals deserve any attention whatsoever? Even when it is egregious and out there?

Brett-
Yes, political rallies tend to be orchestrated. But it’s unusual in non-partisan events, and events where the general civic leadership are supposed to show up, for there to be this exclusion.

I mean, let me put it this way. when Bush showed up for Thanksgiving in 2003, those who wanted to eat with him had to be loyalty oath sworn Bush supporters. What is it about that which strikes you as appropriate levels of “organization”. The price of access to this president should not be agreement, because it is our right as American citizens to have access to our government. That is where the first amendment comes into play here, at least in principle. Bush has no right to surround himself with sycophants and secrecy, as if he were a king or an emperor.

BDR-
No party can speak innocently of draft dodging at this point. Not with Bush in office.

Eric-
Reporters have been killed on all sides. This has been reported in the media. The dispute here is in whether one particular fellow went too far in how he represented this.

That depends strongly on context. If he meant terrorists were targeting journalists, not soldiers doing so, then his comments were in line. If he meant friendly fire deaths had occured among journalists, again he’s not far off.

Is the controversy real, then, or the product of imperfect information compounded by a reflexive casting of reporters as liberal traitors by the Right? We need to have clearer context to understand this situation. Otherwise, this person is being unfairly maligned. If it is otherwise, then criticism is fair.

In the end the fortunes of the Republican party will be determined by how close they remain to the truth and the people. They seem to be doing things to isolate themselves from both. It can’t last forever.

Wow

I watched a documentary called, “Outfoxed.” The statistic showed that 83% of the guests on Fox News were Republicans and 17% were Democrats. The Democrats that do come on are typically weak thus enhances the right wing leaning Fox New’s agenda. The subliminal manipulation is crucial as well. Sean Hannity looks like the “All-American” boy while Alan Colmes looks like a little nerd. It gives an impression of what a conservative should look like as opposed to a liberal. I just find it funny that O’Reilly preaches “family values” while he tells his guests to “shut up.” I will add to that he lies about the amount of times that he uses that term to his guests. I don’t watch either though, between Fox and CNN, but from my experiences; I just don’t see how any can make a case that CNN nor MSNBC are liberal. I guess in Eric’s logic, those who are not preaching about how great President Bush is are against him. Bush said it himself, “You are either with us or against us.” I guess it rings true with Bush leaguers alike in logic.

The two biggest organizitaions that look into the death and torture are CPJ and RSF. They both have demanded investigations about friendly fire journalist deaths, and demanded investigations into claims of torture. They also routinely demand explanation for why journalists are incarcareted.

Here’s the CPJ Iraq overview from 2003:
http://www.cpj.org/attacks03/mideast03/iraq.html
And the RSF overview from 2004:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9945&Valider=OK

These two reports contain generalized information about investigations. Tariq’s death, for instance, was never investigated. In addition, the military was forced into investigations on other journalists, and then changed their story when they were forced to reveal the results of their investigation. Finally, the methods and results and basic paperwork for the majority of investigations in journalists deaths by American troops has never been released.

I have more links. I’ll post them this weekend.

For now, a challenge. Sami Al-Haj (an Al Jazeera reporter) has been incarcareted in Gauntanoma for over two years. He hasn’t been heard of from a year and a half. The reasons for his incarcaretaion have not been released.

Dpes anyone think this is the correct way to handle this situation?

Julia

Julia,
Of course and I heard plenty of times when the military would change stories about missing Vietnam veterans. It is a travesty.

Unsubstantiated? yes. Completely uncoroborated? Not exactly. When you look at Reuters photos that are taken of terrorists executing Iraqis in the street in Fallujah, you’ve got to wonder, who took these pictures?

People with Telephoto Lenses! Have you never seen photojournalists running around with those long lenses? These narrow angle lenses allow them to take photos from a safer distance. They don’t have to stand right by the terrorists to take the photos. They do, however have to get into the war zone, and that is what gets them killed.

As for burning cars, well, they burn because they’re full of gasoline and other flammable material.

One last thing: substantiation is the act of giving things substance. You’re saying your charges have no substance, but somebody else is willing to repeat them. Cute.

Let’s see, several congressman, reporters, the moderator, Gergen, who worked for the Clinton White House… you’re right Stephen, these are unreliable witnesses. We shouldn’t believe anything they say they heard with their own ears. They only pay attention to what they want to hear.

They’re human. That doesn’t mean we reflexively disbelieve everything they say, it just means we’re careful about our interpretations, careful about taking what they say as gospel. Also, we check them back against records as are available.

As for you and quotes, You are selective, and in my opinion, you ignore the substance of what’s being said to get at sensationalistic quotes. You may not be a liar, but I think you’re irresponsible in your quotations.

As for Mary Mapes and the rest, Whatever bias they have hasn’t benefited them. Isn’t it strange that CBS is being so cooperative, if its just some den of liberalism? Fact is, the system, at least in this case, is working.

Once again, a personal attack. Forget about me. Any conservative. Anyone of NON-LIBERAL persuasion. An Independent maybe. Anyone who wasn’t already affected by BDS. (Bush Derangement Syndrome.)

Once again a personal attack. I’m merely giving you my opinion on your document handling skills. Forget politics. There are any number of other conservative columnists who do better sourcing and factchecking than you.

Our soldiers go without armor, and you worry about journalists conspiring to embarrass the Secretary of Defense. People are dying, and you’re worried he’ll get embarrassed.

You belittle the frustrations of liberals as being simple hatred of Bush. Good God, I have heard that too much. I got reasons to dislike him, not the least of which is his shabby treatment of the military. Underneath all his smiles is a fellow who stopped attending drills when it became boring for him. The obsolete fighter excuse is worthless, since the planes he was flying were no more frontline vehicles than what he was going to fly in Alabama.

But war doesn’t stop when you get bored with it, when the fireworks are over. I’ve lost count of his premature declarations of victory. Afghanistan, even with our enemies still function, Iraq at nearly every supposed turning point. He wants the world to work his way, and instead of changing his plans when things don’t go his way, he tries to have a battle of wills with events as they are.

It’s too bad Kerry would never release all of his military records. Did he get an honorable discharge?

Put yourself in my shoes. My old pairs, they’re more comfortable, even have arch supports. My candidate releases page after page of records, including a myriad of fitness reports, incident reports and citations.

Your president digs up a hand full of documents, says everything’s complete, starts complaining about the incompleteness of the other candidates records.

Then they find more records. Again he asserts he’s shown us everything, complains about incomplete records from his rival.

Then they find even more records. Again he says he’s cooperating, again he complains about the incompleteness of his rival’s records.

Who’s got something to hide? Bush does. He acts like a thief, denying he’s got anymore stolen goods on him, then making excuses as the cop interrogating him finds additional loot.

But Bush is so much more powerful, and he has people like you to rationalize for him as we find even more proof. Bush knew he was caught, so he simply stalled, hoping to outlast people’s patience, perhaps getting a lucky distraction as well.

If you read the U.S. News and World Report article I linked you to, you would know that the president not only didn’t show up for drills, he didn’t show up for enough drills. He made some of them up, but for the most part, he did not do so in a timely enough fashion. Bush was not a free man. He was an obligated employee of the U.S military. Of course, he was a rich man’s son in easy units.

That is what you’re excusing: The failure to fulfil his duty. Simple as that. You make excuses for planes, you make excuses for drills not done, not made up in enough time. Anything but admit that Bush was undisciplined, a slacker, a person lacking in serious character. When is it too much? Will it take another attack on this country to get you to covering for his errors?

Do you seriously believe that Osama Bin Laden can’t spare the terrorists to pull something here? It took Nineteen terrorists to pull off the deadliest terrorist attack ever. In Iraq alone, they have thousands of times more people. Even in the most desperate state of war, they could spare enough people. If you want to speak of foolish, delusional battles with the wrong enemy, the president has given you one.

When’s it finally going to get through to you? When the damage is already done? I sure hope not.

Let me admit that I think Bush was “undisciplined, a slacker, a person lacking in serious character.”

I also think he is a changed person, thru his faith, his marriage, and his memory of the 9/11 attack. He is a person of big vision, trying to protect this country the best way he knows how. WMD’s may not have been found, but I have no doubt he believed they were there and didn’t think he could take the chance that they weren’t.

Even if Rather’s story was 100% true, my opinion would not change.

Brett,
Spare me Brett.
Bush can call himself a Christian but that is so obviously a part of the machine. I won’t explain it to you as you know that you have heard it a million times. You are too stubborn to change that view. It is fine with me. When this country goes down, you know who you voted for. I don’t find it very Christian to go out and look out for the fat cats on Wall Street while doing your best to abolish social programs. But its okay, he had the best of intentions.

Aldous,

The event was recorded on video.

Stephen,

when Bush showed up for Thanksgiving in 2003, those who wanted to eat with him had to be loyalty oath sworn Bush supporters.

Really? Where’s the link to this unsubstantiated charge?

As for Bush, I haven’t made any excuses for him. I’ve only told you what is true. You can either accept the truth or follow the left down the trail of conspiracy. Either way it’s your choice.

I don’t see any facts in your characterization of how Bush and his rivals release records. You talk about facts but then say that Bush acts like a thief. Bush signed form 180 which allows all of his military records to be released by whatever government agency has them. Kerry refused to do the same thing. Instead he posted SELECTED documents on his website. Would not allow reporters to review them in person and claims he’s fully released everything. By contrast Bush’s service documents keep popping up precisely because they are being actively looked for and released when they are found. No such documents can ‘be found’ for Kerry because he hasn’t authorized them to be ‘found’. It’s seems convenient that you ignore facts when it suits you.

Here is my question. John Kerry’s campaign manager (I think his name is Mehan) keeps going on TV and saying that Kerry has released all of his military and medical records. However, he has clearly not signed form 180 and there are some important records not publicly available.

Why is Kerry being allowed to get away with stonewalling on this and how come his campaign manager is getting away with simply not being honest?

Michael Dobbs: See my answer to the previous question. As you point out, Kerry spokesmen have repeatedly said that he has put his entire military record on the web (johnkerry.com). If this is so, I cannot see why they should have an objection to an independent researcher (myself or someone else) taking a look at the original file. Same argument applies to the Bush campaign. washingtonpost.com

To my knowledge, Kerry still hasn’t signed form 180 even though he promised to do so to Tim Russert in January. After the election!!

MR. RUSSERT: Many people who’ve been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians…

SEN. KERRY: I’d be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren’t even relevant to the record. So when we get—I’m going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn’t in the record and we’ll put it out. I have no problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim…

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim—everything we put in—I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports. And I’d call on those who have challenged me, let’s see their records. I want to see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge, because some of them have some serious questions in them, and it hasn’t been appropriate…

MR. RUSSERT: So they should sign Form 180s for themselves as well?

SEN. KERRY: You bet.

I’m sorry Stephen, but it seems as though the left is ignoring a lot if inconvenient facts here.

Listen again: Bush admitted that he missed those drills. He admitted to what the real facts stipulate. The part without facts are your charges that he never made up those missed drills, that simply missing those drills should have made him AWOL. The fact is that Bush needed proscribed numbers of hours each year to meet his requirements. The documents show that he did in fact meet those minimum hours. End of story.

The left wants something to be true which isn’t. Facts don’t matter for the left, for Mary Mapes, or Dan Rather because the lies ‘mesh so well’ with what they want to believe is true.

From Eric’s comments, in proof that Eason Jordan was making wild accusations:

In an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Frank said Mr. Jordan discussed in detail the plight of an Al-Jazeera reporter who had been detained by American forces, was made to eat his shoes while incarcerated in the Abu Ghraib prison, and was repeatedly mocked by his interrogators as “Al-Jazeera boy.”

A man who said he was a producer with Al-Jazeera at the network’s headquarters in Doha, Qatar, said he was unaware of any such incident, “although we have had problems with American troops in and out of Iraq.” The Al-Jazeera producer refused to give his name.

The article that talks about the 4 journalists that claim they were tortured and forced to chew on their shoes follows. Eason Jordan was half- wrong. These individuals are Reuters reporters, not Al-Jazeera reporters. Incidentally, these claims were made before the Abu Ghraib info was released:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1121981,00.html

From Eric’s post:

“Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces,” Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal.

This is true. At least 10 journalists have been killed by the U.S. military. And there are reports that journalists have been arrested and tortured by U.S. forces:
http://www.resonant.org/node/425

The only claim that Eason Jordan would be wrong about (if he said it) was that it was a matter of policy to target journalists.

I would say that there are a few cases where there is evidence that individuals who happen to be journalists were deliberately targeted, killed, and tortured by individuals who happen to be U.S. soldiers.

I would also say that there are a few cases where it appears that someone in command deliberately wanted some journalists out-of-commission because they felt the journalists were spies or collobarators. (The Palestine Hotel, the bombing of the Jazeera offices in Kabul and Baghdad, the deliberate arrest and on-going detainment of some reporters).

I also personally think that some people who have reported to Al-Jazeera probably were “insurgents” (or whatever you want to call them). There have been articles by Al-Jazeera reporters admitting that they get footage through anyone they can. I dont’ have a problem with reporters getting arrested if there is some suspicion that they are engaging in killing.

My bigg issue is accountability. Someone should be held accountable for the Palestine hotel bombing (the communications issue). The investigation into the deaths of journalists by friendly fire should be transparent, not hidden. Lawyers for the journalists that claim torture should have access to records, so that they can investigate their clients claims themselves. If I accused someone of torturing me, the investigation shouldn’t consist solely of someone asking that person if they in fact tortured me, and when the person says “no” the investigation is considered concluded.

This is important. It is also a very Republican stance. Accountability for your actions is what conservatisim is supposed to be all about.

Sami Al-Haj deserves a trial. If he’s guilty, let him go to jail. But we shouldn’t presume his guilt without proof.

It is ridiculous that Eason Jordan’s lack of employment is more newsworthy than incarcareting someone for two years without giving evidence of guilt. (Which is even less newsworthy than the fact that it has been proven that innocent individuals were incarcarated in Guantanomo).

I have a lot of respect for Sebastian, who addressed this type of issue head on. If George Bush were as forceful about accountability as Sebastian was, then I’d feel a lot better about him being my president.

Julia

Thomas R:

And if you’re going to attempt to misquote obscure phrases from the bible to justify your ends, try this one, it works without the thous and thys: “Don’t kill.”

I’m staying out of this morality discussion, but Thomas, I challenge you to find a single reference to “don’t kill” in the Bible. This is the closest reference that exists, but “murder” is a specific form of “kill”. The two terms are not interchangable.

Where can we find honest, unbiased news?

Really? Where’s the link to this unsubstantiated charge?

Well, I have two Solid sources on the fact that there was pre-screening and soldiers were turned away:

Washington Post
Stars And Stripes

And a another source on the Loyalty oath issue. Here’s the relevant portions of that:

What did you think about President Bush’s Thanksgiving visit to Iraq?

I was there when President Bush came to the [Baghdad] airport. The day before, you had to fill out a questionnaire and answer questions, that would determine whether they would allow you in the room with the President.

What was on the questionnaire?

“Do you support the president?”

Really!

Yes.

Members of the military were asked whether they support the president politically?

Yes. And if the answer was not a gung-ho, A-1, 100 percent yes, then you were not allowed into the cafeteria. You were not allowed to eat the Thanksgiving meal that day. You had an MRE.

What’s an MRE?

Meals ready to eat. We also call them “meals refused by Ethiopians.”

About this questionnaire, it raises a serious question about whether military personnel, or civil servants for that matter, should ever be asked questions by their supervisors about their political beliefs. It also raises the whole question of freedom of speech. In particular, the circumstances under which members of the military have freedom of speech.

There is none.

Is a soldier free, for example, to speak to the media if it is in support of the president and his policies, but not free to do so if in opposition or if raising uncomfortable questions?

If you are spouting good things about the president, you are allowed to speak. If you are saying anything negative, you are not allowed to speak.

Make of the source what you will, that is what that anonymous soldier said.

As for my characterization of Bush’s release of records, why is even the AP doubtful of his sincerity?

The White House has yet to respond to a request by the AP in April asking the president to sign a written waiver of his right to keep records of his military service confidential. Bush gave an oral waiver in a TV appearance that preceded the White House’s release this year of materials concerning his National Guard service.

The government “did not expedite their response … they did not produce the file within the time required by law, and they will not now estimate when the file might be produced or even confirm that an effort has been initiated to retrieve a copy from the microfilm at the Texas archives,” the lawsuit says.

Kerry, without much prompting, released almost everything except a few confidential medical files. You make a big deal out of the form, but it did a fat lot of good as far as the American people were concerned, in terms of getting information from Bush.

You want to say he wasn’t AWOL, but the U.S. News and World Report article clearly lays out that he took too long to make up for missed drills, drills that were his sole obligation as a National Guardsman. What could possibly have gotten in the way of him doing his duty? The documents show he did not meet the minimum number of hours.

In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush’s service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush’s spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush’s superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months.

Although the records of Bush’s service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston — a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit — or pay — for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill.

Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ”It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable,” said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon’s director of the Air National Guard.

It seems Bush has joined another organization unwilling to hold him accountable, and once again, when called to serve his country, has failed in his duties.

It’s not that I don’t think a serious person could not overcome such character flaws, given time, it’s just that the pattern of his actions so far have not given me much reason to hold faith in his supposed redemption.

Don’t bash me as short on facts. I’m like Anthony Hopkin’s character from The Edge I remember all kinds of things,. Perhaps I should document more soundly, but the facts are there. Regardless, it is my memory for the facts of Bush’s presidency that makes me such a passionate opponent of him. Knowing what I know, remembering what I do, I cannot help my frustration and cynicism regarding him.

If you want me, I’ll be on the other side of the paddle, smoking my pipe, unafraid.

Eric wrote:

I need you to clarify this because it’s sounds confusing to me. Who is focusing on salacious deviant homosexual relations? and indicting the left blogsphere?

Here is an example, of how those of you on The Right are actually defending the alleged sexual proclivities of ‘Gannon’ only, while accusing the Left blogsphere of being solely obsessed with the salacious evidence as a political weapon. This is also the party of James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Rick Santorum and the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment - now accusing the Left of ‘gay bashing’.

This seems to be an odd charge in light of the liberal view that to NOT let someone ask questions of the President would be a violation of their first amendment rights.

Nice try, in your attempt to confuse the issue, Eric. But, this is about the White House’s blatant attempt to manipulate the American people by installing a partisan plant to propagate their preferred message, tiring of all the other credible questions Scott McClellan would rather not answer.

This would be like Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes taking over ABC News - and not telling anyone.

Stephen,

Here’s a good example of the selective context you were talking about and taking quotes out of context. Man, I must have taught you the technique well. I’m proud.

You cite three sources as facts that a loyalty test was required to have Thanksgiving dinner with the President during the surprise visit.

The Washington Post ‘Article’ you cite is actually an editorial. The author also glibly mentions reporters being taken to Guantanomo, how stars and stripes is bucking for a court-martial, and makes a huge deal about how the President’s plane broke international law by filing false flight plans and not identifying itself as Airforce One.

Of more concern, air traffic controllers in Britain are seething over the flight, in which the president’s 747, falsely identified as a Gulfstream, traveled through British airspace. Prospect, the controllers union in the United Kingdom, says the flight broke international regulations, posed a potential safety threat and exposed a weakness in the air defense system that could be exploited by terrorists.

“The overriding concern is if the president’s men who did this can dupe air traffic control, what’s to stop a highly organized terrorist group from duping air traffic control?” asked David Luxton, Prospect’s national secretary. Luxton said the flight was in “breach” of regulations against filing false flight plans set by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which he said should apply to a military aircraft using civilian airspace.

Quite a source, Stephen. And not quite the context you presented it as. The WAPO article quotes a portion of the Star’s and Stripes article.

…cheering soldiers who met him were pre-screened and others showing up for a turkey dinner were turned away.

The newspaper, quoting two officials with the Army’s 1st Armored Division in an article last week, reported that “for security reasons, only those preselected got into the facility during Bush’s visit… . The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit.”

The second link is to the Stars and stripes article itself. Reading it in it’s entirety doesn’t give the same slant you assume is there. You neglect a few details that don’t support your conclusion. No where does it say that soldiers were given loyalty tests.

One soldier?

One soldier wrote to Stars and Stripes voicing displeasure that those under his command were told that during the president�s visit at the Baghdad International Airport for a quick meal and meet-and-greet, they weren�t allowed in.

Yet, later on in the same article it says that soldiers were pre-screened for security, and that only a limited number could attend. Obviously that means someone would not be able to attend. But one soldier said they tried to get in and were turned away? Sounds fishy.

For security reasons, only those pre-selected got into the facility during Bush�s visit. But not one was denied their meal that day, according to Lt. Col. Mark Olinger, deputy chief of staff for Logistics for the Army�s 1st Armored Division.

Limited number.

For six months, Army planners coordinated and prepped for the holiday, and picked the Bob Hope Dining Facility at the Baghdad International Airport because it would allow the maximum number of soldiers to participate, he said. Other locations could accommodate 100 soldiers at most.

Six months planning? You don’t say? Didn’t that one soldier know whether or not his unit would be attending?

�Over 600 soldiers attended the event, who cheered and jumped to their feet when he entered,� Olinger said.

The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit, said Olinger and Capt. David Gercken, a 1st AD spokesman.

Ah, so those who were attending were told. Nothing about loyalty tests either.

These guys couldn’t get in because the President was there?

�The hours for the dining facilities were published and publicized well prior to Thanksgiving,� Gercken said. �In particular, the dining facility at the airport maintained the same hours it posted prior to the president�s visit. The meal for the president was an additional meal.�

Hmm. Seems to be a conflict here. The President’s meal was an additional meal?

At the airport, two facilities served main dinner meals from noon to 3 p.m. Hours were extended at the Hope facility until 4 p.m. and reopened at 8 p.m. for another serving, Olinger said, staying open for more than five more hours.

�We did not close that facility until 1:30 a.m. I believe soldiers had multiple opportunities to have a traditional Thanksgiving dinner and I know of no soldiers being turned away,� he said.

Extra hours. Multiple opportunities. Yet ‘some’ soldiers had to eat MRE’s?

In his letter, Russell acknowledges that his soldiers were told they could return later for their meals, and chose not to. �Regardless, my soldiers chose to complain amongst themselves and eat MREs, even after the chow hall was reopened for �usual business� � As a leader myself, I�d guess that other measures could have been taken to allow for proper security and still let the soldiers have their meal,� Russell wrote.

In Baghdad, soldiers celebrated Thanksgiving dinner at 32 locations throughout the city. Army cooks or Kellogg, Brown & Root employees prepared the meals and �quality was the same throughout the division task force,� Olinger said.

Well Stephen, doesn’t sound like much of a loyalty test in this article. Where does it mention Loyalty Oaths?

Third link: “Intervention Magazine” Ah, here’s a non-partisan source we can use to validate angst against the President. Man! You might as well dredge up some Berkeley Paper. It looks like someone’s anti-war blog to me. I thought you said we can’t trust blogs as sources? I recall that you claim to only cite ‘legitimate’ news sources?

In the sidebar:

The American occupation of Iraq struggles against the moral advantage enjoyed by those who are defending the land of their birth from alien invaders. - - - - �No matter his electoral victory, Bush will never be absolved of sending young people to kill and be killed in a war without moral justification. One does not have to be a Catholic to agree with the pope that the invasion of Iraq fails to meet the Christian standard of a �just war.’ ”

And the interview with the soldier is conveniently with an ‘anonymous’ soldier.

Way to go. Rock solid facts all the way with this one.

On to Bush again. More quotes about how the AP is ‘doubtful’. Is that the kind of fact you base your conclusions on? That a reporter writes that he is doubtful? Innuendo as fact.

Fact: Bush signed standard form 180 authorizing the release of ALL his military records. Records which he doesn’t keep in the White House safe. Records which are at the Pentagon, and in Texas, and no doubt, other places archived. Form 180 is the OK for reporters to obtain those records and even dig for more records that might be filed away somewhere in some government office.

Fact: Kerry said he would sign standard form 180, but somehow never does. Of course we can trust him when he says he’s released ‘all the pertinent records’ of his military service. Secret CIA boat trips notwithstanding.

Facts are facts. They aren’t innuendo, or opinion. They stand on their own.

Eric-
I didn’t care about slant. I cared about facts. I selected two articles to support the third factually, to lend it the substance you denied even existed. You can obsess about media bias all you want to, my concern was the truth about the exclusion.

Certain facts are there. There was in fact a screening process that went on before the arrival of the president. You don’t contradict that. There were certain people chosen, and certain others left out.

I never asserted that the first two articles were evidence of the loyalty test. I said they were evidence of the selective, somewhat contrived nature of the event. And I was not concerned about slant. I tried my best, in fact, not to have the information I give you be from some liberal blog.

I’ll be happy to write to Stars and Stripes and ask them to pass onto that one soldier how fishy you believe his story to be. I mean, if you can’t trust bonafide heroes in this day and age, who can you trust?

You’re quibbling about whether they got to eat. They did. You’re quibbling about planning. Well, I don’t know why, because if this was planned six months in advance as a presidential visit, it wouldn’t have been kept secret that well, and it wouldn’t have deserved to be considered a surprise visit. Your judge of context should be better: they were preparing for the Holiday six months in advance, not the president’s visit. Aditionally, your next quote entirely invalidates your quibble about the soldier’s ignorance:

The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit, said Olinger and Capt. David Gercken, a 1st AD spokesman.

The ones selected didn’t even know until shortly before the visit. Plus, while loyalty tests aren’t mentioned (I didn’t say they would be in the first place) what is there, and what should be taken note of was this:

The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command…

That was the fact that I wished to emphasize: Selection, preparation. Even if no loyalty oath is required, there is an element of artificiality in what is supposed to be a president showing his gratitude to the troops.

What further undermines this picture of a spontaneous, generous visit is that indeed, there is an entirely different meal set up just for the president. He didn’t just arrive at some in-progress thanksgiving meal. It was staged. Do a quick google search, and you’ll find that the turkey Bush posed with was a fake.

Read the original letter yourself. What does the soldier say?

As a soldier deployed in Iraq, I hear all the complaints from individuals who think they have it worse than the next guy. I’m lucky enough to be with soldiers who often complain amongst themselves, but all they expect are good leadership and three square meals a day.

And a paragraph later, after an explanation of the duties his unit has carried out:

During the war, Meals, Ready to Eat were naturally the way to go. They were appreciated, even by the vegetarians who had only crackers and cheese after the veggie meals were gone. Now that we’re stationed at Baghdad International Airport almost 10 months later, my soldiers believe that several comforts have finally arrived for them, like the post exchange and dining facility. But imagine their dismay when they walked 15 minutes to the Bob Hope Dining Facility, only to find that they were turned away from their evening meal because they were in the wrong unit.

Yes, these guys were willing to eat MREs when the time came. Nobody argues here or anywhere that our soldiers were starved. But starvation isn’t the issue. It’s the principle of the things.

Last part:

The one thing that they find a requirement was denied to them. They understand that President Bush ate there and that upgraded security was required. But why were only certain units turned away? Why wasn’t there a special meal for President Bush and that unit in the new dance hall adjoining the 1st Armored Division’s band building? And all of this happened on Thanksgiving, the best meal of the year when soldiers get a taste of home cooking.

Were the local national servers also kept out of the building because of security reasons? Regardless, my soldiers chose to complain amongst themselves and eat MREs, even after the chow hall was reopened for “usual business” at 9 p.m. As a leader myself, I’d guess that other measures could have been taken to allow for proper security and still let the soldiers have their meal.

In the third source, this issue becomes the crux of the point- if you were a Bush supporter, you got a warm, homecooked meal, if not, you got an MRE, which the anonymous soldier in politically incorrect sarcasm refers to as a Meal Rejected by Ethiopians (Read: the beneficiaries of “We Are the World).

I don’t blame you entirely for distrusting the third source, since he is anonymous and there is a significant slant to the publication, but there is a significant level of agreement between this author and other’s documenting things: screening processes, soldiers turned away for a seemingly arbitrary security reason. Most significantly, there is little evidence of true spontaneity on the part of the President on this visit. The question of whose gratitude was supposed to be expressed most clearly, Bush’s or the troops, naturally comes up.

As for the sidebar, well, I was more interested in the interesting correlations, between Bush’s practice of stacking his audiences (well documented) and this particular incident, documented by Sergeant Loren Russell. Each supports the other. There was a selection process. Where there surveys? Hopefully we can find out

As for the AP being doubtful, they’d damn well have to be doubtful to sue the pentagon in order to get the documents You put so much emphasis on formality, but you forget to follow up and find out just what your form 180 did. Apparently, you’re not familiar with incidents in the past, where Bush hid away his Governor’s papers in his father’s library. When John Dean, former White House counsel to Richard Nixon, tells you your administrative’s a bit secretive, you should worry.

The claim is not perfect, but I think it bears further inspection. Unfortunately, you have no more interest in investigating your president than the Pentagon or justice departement under his control.

The facts are there. The presentation may not be perfect, but there are facts to spare. I’m still on the right side oft his paddle.

I am more worried about the way this Administration is screwing the Troops.
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/02/13/build/local/35-vets-rip-budget.inc

Stephen,

I find it instructive that you will not apply the same standard to yourself and liberal sources that you will to me.

I enjoy our debate, but often your argument is that I leave things out of context and do not quote ‘fully reliable’ mainstream media sources.

Eric-
I provided you with a column, the article the column was based on, and the letter the article was based on. I conceded the weakness of the source, rather than trying to bluff out of it, but instead provided links to sites that confirmed that parts of the argument were true and matched with other, independent accounts of what happened.

In your responses, however, you accused the author of the original Stars and Stripes letter of dishonesty, without any sources I could see to support that. You used context that said that soldiers weren’t starved to refute the notion that they were excluded from thanksgiving festivities. It never occured to you that soldiers could be in no position to choose their time for thanksgiving dinner, and therefore had to come at a particular time to eat it at all.

This is the problem I allude to. Couldn’t you accept that the soldier was telling the truth? For me, the test is a combination of reliability of the source (that is, how often do they get it wrong) and the pattern of correspondence between that publication and others. This letter, being a primary source published under the author’s name and published in a major military press, should be accorded some degree of reliability.

But it seems that your position is that anything that hurts Bush must be a partisan attack, and liberals, Democrats and moderates aren’t supposed to contradict or oppose the GOP and President Bush anyways. This is a particularly convenient argument, because nobody can contradict you without being part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

There doesn’t seem to be room in your posts for disagreement, no concession, nothing short of victory. But in real life, you can’t win every argument, especially if you want to be right. I liar can win every argument by twisting the facts, doesn’t make them right. Policy must be founded on truths, and solid principles, not merely political victories.

Stephen,

I provided you with a column, the article the column was based on, and the letter the article was based on. I conceded the weakness of the source, rather than trying to bluff out of it, but instead provided links to sites that confirmed that parts of the argument were true and matched with other, independent accounts of what happened.

Sure, but my point is that the same kind of sources are derided if they are used in support of an argument you deem without merit.

The first two articles do not support the statement that soldiers had to pass a loyalty test to eat thanksgiving with him. What they say is something distinct from your charge.

Only the third radical source supports your charge

In your responses, however, you accused the author of the original Stars and Stripes letter of dishonesty, without any sources I could see to support that. You used context that said that soldiers weren’t starved to refute the notion that they were excluded from thanksgiving festivities.

You are confusing my criticism of the Washington Post editorial, which quotes a small selected portion of the Stars and Stripes article, with the Stars and Stripes article itself. The Stars and stripes article gives us many more details to make a better assessment of the claim about loyalty tests. If fact it gives no support to it. I would cite it in refutation of your charge that Bush required loyalty tests to attend thanksgiving dinner.

Your version gives no account of the details in the Stars and Stripes article that counters your charge. Specifically that there was some kind of loyalty test issued, requiring soldiers to swear allegiance to Bush or something.

I liar can win every argument by twisting the facts, doesn’t make them right.

I’m a liar again?

You and I are obviously very argumentative people. My Father liked to argue so much that he would say black if you said white just to keep the argument going. I don’t like to lose arguments, but in real life I don’t contend with everyone around me, and I doubt you do either. There’s a place for tenacious argument and Watchblog seems an ok place to argue about fine (or not so fine) points of distinction.

Anyway, there’s no evidence any soldier was required to take a ‘loyalty test’ in order to eat Thanksgiving dinner in a dining hall in Iraq. As the Stars and Stripes article points out there are other details about the arrangements that explain why things were done the way they were. If you must interpret something insideous from the fact that only 600 soldiers could take part, and that these soldiers were selected beforehand… that’s your business. I don’t think the facts warrant your conclusion.

We may not agree, but we can agree to disagree.

Eric-

Sure, but my point is that the same kind of sources are derided if they are used in support of an argument you deem without merit.

You use such sources with no shame whatsoever. I don’t remember the last time you apologized for partisanship in the work.

The charge of exclusion and that of political stacking are only different by one detail: why the soldiers were kept out. The evidence supporting both is very similar- the when, the where, and the how. Only the why is missing. The third article provides that. It is of course the weakest link, but the rest of the deal is substance, not wild speculation.

If the Stars and Stripes,/i> article refutes what I say, please work by it and refute me. Quote me the contradictory details.

As for calling you a liar, I wouldn’t mess around if that were my opinion of you. read what I was talking about.

It is the behavior of the Bush adminstration with other dissidents that informs people’s beliefs about this incident. We know loyalty oaths have been demanded at other political events of theirs we also know that the Bush notion of security sometimes means sequestering people away from the president when mostly they just disagree with him. (free speech zones being an example.

As for 600 soldiers- out of how many? probably a few thousand at least. It would be good to find out what the main criteria for leaving people in or out was.

Thomas,

The passage that you are MIS-quoting actually says that we should not commit MURDER.

Bryan,

Are you submitting that God approves of “killing” people? (just not murdering) And that it is Christian-like behavior to kill people?

Julia

Julia,

No, he’s saying that the hebrew word in the ten commandments is actually the word for ‘murder’, not ‘kill’.

Our own jurisprudence recognizes degrees of ending the life of a human being. First degree murder is a different act than involuntary manslaughter.

Thou shall not kill is an entirely different statement from thou shall not murder.

Imagine someone stepping in front of your car as your are driving down the road. You are guilty of killing, but are you guilty of murder?

King James, among other versions, translated it to “kill”. Theologians still argue over how to define the word.

I believe the point was that someone was “caught” misquoting when they were accusing someone else of misquoting. Well, it’s really up in the air, unless we’re going to start saying some protestants aren’t Christians and others are. Also, by even bringing it up, Bryan is promoting the view that God is cool with killing people under certain circumstances.

Sure, the old hebrew law said it was okay to “kill” persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who were seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practiced black magic, some women who were raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collected firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, and strangers who entered the temple…

But the whole reason we buy into the new testament is Jesus came in and said “You got away from the point. Let me clarify it for you: TURN THE OTHER CHEEK.”

If we want to start getting into specific semantics. “Involuntary manslaughter” is different than “killing” and different than “murder”. So maybe what God said was “It’s okay to commit involuntary manslaughter but murder 1 and murder 2 are definitely not kosher, and I have certain other areas of the legal code about human on human violence that I’d like to clarify to you.”

It’s just a dubious way of scoring a “gotcha” point, that’s all I’m saying.

But if you want to continue describing to me all the ways God is okay with me killing another human being, feel free.

Julia

Julia,

I’m not sure that it’s that much of a controversy.

The Hebrew word used in the ten commandments is ratsach ‘raw-tsakh’ according to my “Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible.”

a primitive root; prop. to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder: put to death, kill, (man-)slay(-er), murder(-er).

I haven’t been to a synogogue lately, (though I definately want to), so I don’t know how it’s printed in their bibles, but most modern translations, and hebrew references I’ve perused put it as murder as well.

I’m just saying.

If you want to debate whether or not war or capital punishment is wrong according to the bible, be my guest.

Eric

I hate it that I so easily get sidetracked. But here’s my point distilled: Who is more Christian? A Quaker (any form of killing is unlawful) or a Baptist (murder is unlawful).

Both translate the bible differently. Both are devout.

If I was to accede to your murder belief, then I would say that the Quakers are wrong. If I was to accede to the killing belief, I would say Baptists are wrong. What I choose to do, is say that it is still being debated, and there is no clear way to translate it, since I don’t want to choose between Quakers and Baptists.

I think both interpretations are valid. And thus, I don’t think you can state that “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is a mis-quote.

Julia