"Everything I thought I knew was wrong."

Reporting from Iraq suffers from a standard malady, incompleteness. This is partly inherent to news reporting itself and partly due to political bias. Suffice it to say that you do not get the real story if you are a liberal ‘realist’ who already knows what the story should be.

I don't normally watch the local news but yesterday I made an exception. After exactly one-half hour of 'news' about my city I was ready to move. If I got all my information from watching the local evening news I'd have a pretty grim picture of where I live. Yet how many murders do I see everyday? How many thefts? How many scams and tragedies are a part of my daily life? Very little, thank god. But I'm sure the stories were real. In a greater metropolitian area of (approx.) 800,000 people there are a lot of good and bad and indifferent things going on all at the same time. In fact, I'm sure I don't know half of what my neighbors go through everyday and vice versa.

But if my sole picture of the state of my city came from the evening news I would believe I lived in an absolutely miserable place, where any moment I could be stabbed, shot, robbed, or run over. Is this a complete picture from which to make potentially tragic strategic decisions about whether or not to stay until the job is done?

Think about everything you’ve heard about the conditions in Iraq, the role of U.S. forces, the multi-layered complexities of the war.

Then think again.

I’m a journalist. I read the news everyday, from several sources. I have the luxury of reading stuff newspapers don’t always have room to print. I read every tidbit I could on Iraq and the war before coming.

Everything I thought I knew was wrong. newsminer.com

I cannot remember a single positive story about Iraq in the last year from the MSM. Not one. Is it possible that there is no good news in Iraq? Or are we not getting all the facts?

The UCLA has done an interesting media study comparing news outlets with members of congress and found that indeed the news media is heavily tilted to the left.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co-author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. newsroom.ucla.edu

Couple this kind of pervasive bias in a news media that is with a Democratic political jihad to defame, derail, and mal-diagnose everything about this war and Bush, and what you have is a distorted picture of reality. A picture that Democrats like John Murtha are dishonestly peddling for their own political gain.

More than anything in the last few days I’ve heard from soldiers and commanders that people back home don’t quite get it. They don’t see the real picture. They don’t get the real story. Some of them, like Lt. Col. Gregg Parrish, look seriously pained in the face when he says only a part of the picture is being told; the part of car bombs and explosives and suicide bombers and death. It’s a necessary part of the picture, but not a complete one, he says.

I’ve listened to the soldiers and Parrish about the missing pieces of the puzzles that don’t reach home. My selfish, journalistic drive immediately thinks “Perfect. A story that hasn’t been told. Let me at it.”

But I have a slight hesitation; I need to keep balanced. I can’t be a cheerleader, even if I have a soft spot for the hometown troops, especially after the welcome they’ve shown me. I still need to be truthful and walk the centerline and report the good or bad.

But then I realize it’s not a conflict of interest. If I am truly unbiased, then I need to get used to this one simple fact; that the untold story, might in fact, be a positive one. It takes a minute to wrap my mind around it, as a news junkie that became a news writer. The great, career-making, breaking news stories usually don’t have happy endings; they usually revolve around disturbing news, deceit and downfall. Nasty political doings. Gruesome crimes and murders. Revealing secrets.

But I’ve come upon something that is none of those. Not this aspect of it. There are politics to this war and controversies and investigations. But there is another side. newsminer.com

Is there a war going on in Iraq? Yes. Are there terrorists trying to kill Iraqi's and U.S. soldiers. Absolutely. Are we defeated militarily? Preposterous. Should we quit the field of battle because of the lack of imagination on the part of strident critics? I think not. To do so would be a betrayal, not only of our troops, but of the Iraqi people, whom we twice promised to liberate and failed to do so the first time.

Iraqi's do want U.S. forces to leave Iraq. But then so do we! And we will leave, as the President says, "when the job is done." This means when there is a stable government and Iraqi armed forces are able to stand on their own and fight for their freedom from murderous thugs who are not 'freedom-fighters' and who have every intention of ruling over Iraq with brutal terror.

The elections in Iraq are an important part of Bush's 'plan for victory'. It is the kind of timetable that matters, rather than a timetable for retreat. And it is precisely the part of Bush's plan that the left wanted to do without. Postpone elections, they said, until there is security. Each election has been downplayed by Democrats, and even ridiculed in some quarters. But then it is precisely this aspect of the war that they do not seem to understand. The moral aspect. The battle for hearts and minds. A battle the left now wants us to lose by capitulation.

One voter said: "This is stability, at last".

Another, with tears in his eyes, told me: "This is the beginning of a new Iraq. I am so happy."

Iraqi men go through security check prior to voting at an election centre at Al-Sadr city, east of Baghdad, Iraq, Thursday, Dec. 15, 2005
Security was high in Muthanna after a bomb at previous polls

Iraqis are known for their spontaneous, and often poetic eloquence.

Ali al-Musawi, a Shia Muslim originally from Sadr city said: "Iraq is like a ship in a storm being tossed from left to right, and now we need a new captain to take us to land and to safety."

One man hoped the election would bring an end to the occupation, but this would depend, he said, on maintaining unity.

"Stability can only come from unity. When we have stability," he said, " then the Americans can go."

In Muthanna, in Baghdad, it has certainly been the day of unity and celebration that President Jalal Talabani said he hoped for. news.bbc

Posted by Eric Simonson at December 19, 2005 6:21 AM
Comments
Comment #104080

Now come the mighty Sicilian Eagle dropping in with his two cents worth after a weekend of intense snooping around:

1.The president’s speech last night(actually the president’s last 5 speeches recently)will result in another gain in the polls.Not only that,Rep.Murtha’s “plan” now and forever goes back on the shelf as that discussion becomes ancient history.

2.Since world and nationial opinion always drag behing real-time news,the enormity of the elections will beging to dawn on people worldwide and nationially this week as results are announced,and rest assures that arms will be twisted to assure Sunni participation and resolution to the constitution issue.

3.The New York times will be investigated over the NSA story.Someone leaked highly classified material to them and it wasn’t Yellowcake Joe.
This is potentially very big news.The president has a paper trail on this matter and the legality of it is subject to interpretation….enough to stomp out that impeachment bullshit.Expect the administration to go to Congress and get this problem fixed.
The Times story however,released the day after the election is Iraq,smells like shit,and that’s exactly where someone there will end up with as a Federal prosecutor gets involved.

4.The Patriot Act will get a three-month extention soon and ultimately that issue will be put to bed.

5.Some moderate Democrats,now seeing their party’s chance of mid-term elections dipping,will move even more closer to the center and pick other issues to seperate themselves from the far left.

6.Most important:The Patriots will stomp the Colts in the AFC Playoff game and then win the Super Bowl.Three-peat time.

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at December 19, 2005 7:18 AM
Comment #104083

Hi Eric,

There is a strong pro-war bias in the media.

Our troops are fighting and dying in Iraq supporting terrorists in the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces.

If the media didn’t exhibit a strong pro-war bias the fact that we’re supporting terrorits in Iraq would be headline news.

Many on the right don’t want the media to tell the truth about Iraq and are attacking the media on that basis.

The truth in Iraq doesn’t support the right wing spin on what’s going on there.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 7:47 AM
Comment #104086

Eric,

You folks honestly believe that the Pentagon, who paid for lies to make the news, would sit back and not give their numerous P.R. firms the green light on bringing the human interest aspect of the war to the American people?

If we were doing anything close to the school building, bridge repairing, infrastructure rebuilding that the President and Cheney were reporting, the Pentagon would make sure that those images and stories reached us.

It is almost laughable that you folks support an administration that promotes torture, preemptive attacks on other nations based on doctored intelligence, squashing individual liberties, eliminating the separation of church and state, propoganda reporting and destroying the environment in favor of big business.
Kepp up the good work super-patriots.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at December 19, 2005 7:58 AM
Comment #104090

I have always believed that there was a Liberal lean to all the main stream media and rightly so. That’s not anything new or big news.

I would like to thank all our young women and men in uniform for their service and wish them all God speed on their way coming home soon. When the mission is done.

I didn’t watch President Bush’s speech last night but did read the transcript online. It was another excellent speech by him and showed that my support of his decisions on everything he has done was the right thing to do.

I know we have Murtha, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and quite a few of the other far left Liberal Democrats who don’t agree with Bush or his plan for success. They criticize it all the time. I just wonder why they all can’t get together and come up with a Democratic Plan that makes sense. I feel sorry for them again in a way because the next election will probably go the same as the last ones have. One of the biggest reasons is they don’t have plans for anything. All they have are criticisms of Republican plans. People want to vote for something and not against something. Oh well, maybe they’ll learn but I rather doubt it.

Posted by: Gopher at December 19, 2005 8:24 AM
Comment #104096

Hi Gopher,

You seem confused about the term “far left”.

None of those you mentioned are far left. That you included Murtha indicates that you aren’t in touch with reality here.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 8:29 AM
Comment #104099

Well Louis, thanks for the laugh. None of them I mentioned are far left my eye. And the Main Stream Media has a pro-war bias. Oh man, send me some of what your smoking! Have a good day, I’ve got to get to work on time. Imagine you do too huh.

Posted by: Gopher at December 19, 2005 8:35 AM
Comment #104106

Andre and Louis,
One believes the general media without a second thought (amplifying Eric’s point) contrary to numerous non-mainstream sources and simple logical reasoning.

The other states the exact opposite.

Typical political stance for the Democrats. Both sides of the fence as long is Bush is the enemy. The US government is the enemy, but Dems want BIGGER government. The US military is the enemy, but it’s the military that gives all of us the freedom to have opinions…even if they don’t make sense.

If Andre is accurate, the millions Iraqi’s would be standing with the thousand-or-so terrorists to fight againist democracy. The Iraqi’s are not doing that. They are deciding their own future by voting, not letting someone else determine it.

If Louis is correct, why would the terrorists be fighting democracy? We’re installing them to power.

Now I will sit back and watch these two. They will either fall all over themselves trying to put a cohesive thought together, start spouting liberal talking points or, if all else fails, start calling me names.

Let the fun begin….

Posted by: Rich at December 19, 2005 8:45 AM
Comment #104108

Hi Gopher,

“None of them I mentioned are far left my eye.”

Then you’ll support what you said about Murtha?

“Murtha often supported former President Ronald Reagan’s controversial policies regarding El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980s — gave that assistance.

During both the first and second Bush administrations he emerged as a key ally — often, the most important Democratic ally — of the Republican presidents. Cheney frequently acknowledged their long working relationship, describing Murtha in public statements as a Democrat he could “work with.”

In the 2004 vice presidential debate, Cheney noted that, “One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was Secretary of Defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.” The vice president was particularly complimentary over the years of the Pennsylvania representatives decision to provide high-profile backing of the administration’s 2002 request for authorization to use force against Iraq.”
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=38198

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 8:51 AM
Comment #104113

Hi Rich,

“If Louis is correct, why would the terrorists be fighting democracy?”

Some are fighting Democracy in Iraq. Other terrorists were voted in by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi security forces are riddled with terrorists as well.

Elections obviously aren’t a cure for terrorism in the Middle East. Hamas just did really well in Palestianian elections.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 8:55 AM
Comment #104135

Louis, you missed Rich’s point entirely, which is a great one. If in fact your assertion is true, that the Iraqi government, military and security forces are riddled with terrorists, then why is there an insurgency at all? Why would the terorists be fighting terrorists? IED’s and car bombs are continuing, albeit on a much smaller scale, however this seems to conflict with your assertion that the terrorists are ascending to power. Please explain.

Posted by: Jay at December 19, 2005 9:59 AM
Comment #104142

Gopher says the Dems have no opinions, only reactions.

Eric says the MSM isn’t reporting the whole truth and that they show a liberal, anti-war bias.

Eagle says (in all of his other posts, but not in this one — yet) that it’s treasonous to be against against any of Bush’s policies.

Funny how all three above opinions are just that — opinions. Where are the facts? You won’t get very many of them in this column, because the Repubs don’t want to admit them. Instead, they’d rather replace facts with opinions, because a) opinions can make them appear to be “decisive” where the facts cannot; and b) the Republican leadership (a contradiction in terms) is in major damage control mode, so spin must supersede reality. Unfortunately, the facts remain that:

> Bush went to war in Iraq on failed intelligence.
> Iraq was not a direct threat to us before we invaded.
> Since invading, Iraq has become a premier breeding gound for anti-American terrorists and insurgents
> We continue to torture suspected terrorists.
> The administration and the NSA think it’s okay to spy on anti-war goups
> Our deficit, thanks to Iraq et.al. conrinues to grow, with no end in sight.
> When individuals disagree with Bush’s Iraq policy in a public forum, they become victims of the administration’s retaliation.

…yet all Eric can whine about is how liberal the MSM is. Put the tape in the VCR, my friend. The repetition of your message, along with Bush’s “Stay the Course” mantra prove that no one in this party is providing a strategy or respecting the facts. This President has gotten us into something that has damaged us, and will continue to damage us, long before (or even if) it will help us.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at December 19, 2005 10:13 AM
Comment #104143

Hi Jay,

“If in fact your assertion is true, that the Iraqi government, military and security forces are riddled with terrorists,”

It is a fact that the government and military are riddled with terrorits.
http://www.forward.com/articles/7031

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051214/3/2celw.html

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13391616.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-key-players-iq1,1,436104.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

“Why would the terorists be fighting terrorists?”

You should ask them. It’s a fact that they are fighting each other. I’m merely pointing out well documented facts here.

The Shiite terrorists and the Sunni terrorists don’t like each other at all.

Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in Iraq.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:14 AM
Comment #104145

“In Lebanon, elections a few months ago returned Hezbollah to parliament. The new government, the first to take office since the end of Syria’s occupation of Lebanon, awarded the radical Islamists with two portfolios. Hezbollah’s armed militia is reportedly more efficient than the Lebanese army; it boasts of having 12,000 katyusha-type rockets aimed at northern Israel.
And in the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, an Islamic radical organization with at least 2,000 men under arms, is being welcomed to participate in national elections set for January 25, 2006. Polls show it may gain anywhere from 30% to 40% of the vote.
One characteristic of all these interactions between militant Arab Islam and democratic processes is that the Bush administration is encouraging and abetting them, in accordance with its democratic reform program for the Arab Middle East. The administration has decided that in order to make democracy work, radical Islamists should be urged and allowed to participate.
Washington is fully aware that these Islamists maintain private armies and that this is a violation of one of the most basic principles of democracy, wherein there must be a single elected source of authority that maintains a monopoly on the use of force. It also knows that many of the Islamists are closely allied with Iran, a member of the “axis of evil.” It has decided to ignore these travesties on the double assumption that, first, the democratic process can only operate if it is inclusive, and second, inclusion of the armed Islamists in the governmental process eventually will cause them to moderate their policies and disarm.
This is a huge risk, and there is absolutely no proof that it will work as intended.”
http://www.forward.com/articles/7031


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:17 AM
Comment #104148

“One characteristic of all these interactions between militant Arab Islam and democratic processes is that the Bush administration is encouraging and abetting them, in accordance with its democratic reform program for the Arab Middle East. The administration has decided that in order to make democracy work, radical Islamists should be urged and allowed to participate.”
http://www.forward.com/articles/7031

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:18 AM
Comment #104149

morning all
after reading your intial post i agree with alomost every thing youve said ,however your final statement was flagrantly false and misleading ,,,,,,,as the Steelers will win the super bowl this year GOOOOO STEELERS

Posted by: Rylee at December 19, 2005 10:18 AM
Comment #104150

Louis, you have such a high regard for people of the middle east that it is truly heart-warming. The ACLU is currently defending the NAMBLA organization. Are you familiar with that organization? Using your logic, everyone who is a member of the ACLU is a child molester, true or false?

Posted by: Jay at December 19, 2005 10:21 AM
Comment #104156

one other point of interest ,recently a document was uncovered that was created by an aid to senotor Durbin which called for releasing highly secret intelligence info to news organzations if it would embaress belittle or degrade the bush administration,then day after election this is info of the NSA activities is released ,this is no longer simply dirty politics this is high treason /sedition and any and all efforts to uncover this leak must be taken and those responsible tried in court for thier actions.

Posted by: Rylee at December 19, 2005 10:23 AM
Comment #104155

Eric —

An excerpt from an AP article this morning. Apparently, the troops disagree with you, too:
—————-
“Cheney rode the wave of last week’s parliamentary elections during a 10-hour surprise visit to Iraq that aimed to highlight progress at a time when Americans question the mission. Military commanders and top government officials offered glowing reports, but the rank-and-file troops Cheney met did not seem to share their enthusiasm.

“From our perspective, we don’t see much as far as gains,” said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. “We’re looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain — how Iraq’s looking.”

Cheney replied that remarkable progress has been made in the last year and a half.

“I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we’ll see that the year ‘05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq,” the vice president said. “

Posted by: Mister Magoo at December 19, 2005 10:23 AM
Comment #104158

Hi Jay,

“Louis, you have such a high regard for people of the middle east that it is truly heart-warming.”

Do you have a high opinion of Arab terrorists?

Is there something wrong with thinking that supporting Arab terrorists is a bad idea Jay?

“Using your logic, everyone who is a member of the ACLU is a child molester, true or false?”

My logic involves nothing of the sort.

The fact is that the government of Iraq and the security forces in Iraq are riddled with terrorists. This a fact that you’re dancing around.

Why don’t you stop dancing around the obvious facts of the matter Jay?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:27 AM
Comment #104171

Louis, answer the question. It is a very relevant question. Every member of the ACLU is a child molester as is every member of SCIRI or of the Iraqi government is a terrorist? True or False? You stop avoiding the question. I haven’t “danced around” anything, this is your continued “last straw” attempt at trying to defeat this Iraq effort because you have lost on every single occasion thus far.

Posted by: Jay at December 19, 2005 10:41 AM
Comment #104172

I agree that being realistic means not choosing negative or positive in a story, but simply reporting the facts. But that’s not what Eric wants. He wants the positive to be reported to the exclusion of the negative. Why else continually insist upon such trivial measures of victory like opened schools and anecdotes of people on the street?

The reality is, the media is biased- towards disaster and death, battle and conflict. In that vein of thought, you can reconcile the entire war’s coverage, favorable and unfavorable.

The right isn’t going to help things, though, by trying to paint a rose-tinted picture of things. It’s a dreams our primitive minds keep trying to wake up from, to paraphrase Agent Smith from The Matrix What we need is a story that has the virtue of being as true as we can get it, with positive and negative details together in the soundest possible interpretation. Whichever direction it leans, it needs to lean there organically.

What we need is not cheerleading. Americans are too sophisticated nowadays about the media to trust that for long without its vindication. No, what we need is an honest accounting that gives us the information we need to decide things for ourselves. Manipulation will only deepen the anger and resentment of people towards this war.

Respect people’s intelligence, or you may find yourself at the business end of their disbelief.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 19, 2005 10:42 AM
Comment #104174

“The fact is that the government of Iraq and the security forces in Iraq are riddled with terrorists.”

“It’s a fact that they [terrorists] are fighting each other.”

Sounds good to me. Let them pick each other off.

Rahdigly 3 Liberals 0


Now, Jay made a very, very good point on this point that shouldn’t be ignored:

“If in fact your assertion is true, that the Iraqi government, military and security forces are riddled with terrorists, then why is there an insurgency at all? Why would the terorists be fighting terrorists? IED’s and car bombs are continuing, albeit on a much smaller scale, however this seems to conflict with your assertion that the terrorists are ascending to power.”

Good point Jay.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 10:44 AM
Comment #104175

Hi Jay,

“Louis, answer the question.”

I did.

“It is a very relevant question.”

It isn’t even close to being relavant. You’re still dancing here.

“Every member of the ACLU is a child molester as is every member of SCIRI or of the Iraqi government is a terrorist?”

That’s complete nonsense Jay.

All I’ve done is point out the fact (WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WELL DOCUMENTED FACTS HERE JAY) that the Iraqi government is riddled with terrorists.

Would you care to address the facts at hand or can I expect more dance moves?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:45 AM
Comment #104178

Hi Jay,

“you have lost on every single occasion thus far.”

You’ll support that or admit that you’re lying?

Seriously Jay if you can’t support that bullshit I’d like a retraction.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:46 AM
Comment #104179

Eric: “Everything I thought I knew was wrong.”?

Since that was a very weak effort at sardonic writing, I thought for a second you had actually woken up…

I’ll send you some wipes.
================================================
Stephen: Americans are too sophisticated nowadays about the media to trust that for long … Respect people’s intelligence, or you may find yourself at the business end of their disbelief.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at December 19, 2005 10:42 AM

Have you read this thread? There are people who bought the administration and their propoganda machine BS bait hook , line, and sinker! {About 40% or so}. Better than Nixon but far behind Clinton.

Louis,
Why bother, with the logic being used I’m surprised some can even use a computer.

Posted by: Dave at December 19, 2005 10:48 AM
Comment #104180

Hi rahdigly,

“Sounds good to me.”

Do you think it’s a good thing that American troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists?

I win again! All I have to do is declare myself a winner and it immediately becomes true!

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:48 AM
Comment #104182

Hi Dave,

“Why bother, with the logic being used”

You’ve got a point.

These guys are completely unable to aknowledge well documented facts. They’re not discussing….they’re dancing and spinning.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:51 AM
Comment #104189

You DID NOT answer the question Louis. Your assertion that the Iraqi govt is riddled with terrorists would be the same as my assertion that the ACLU is riddled with child molesters based on affiliation. Please explain then why the terrorists continue fighting the terrorists if in fact they are ascending to power? Are all members of SCIRI with previous terrorist inclinations completely incompetent of directing a peaceful Iraq? A few months back your continued assertion was that Iraq was a “qaugmire” and hopelessly lost. You seem to have abandoned that diatribe.

Posted by: Jay at December 19, 2005 11:12 AM
Comment #104192

“Do you think it’s a good thing that American troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists?”


YES! Because, as I’ve had said many, many times: the troops are fighting for Iraqi freedom and some of the Iraqis are going to have terrorist ties. That just a fact. Hell, the UN had ties to terrorists, or at did deals with them (UN Oil for Food Scandal).


So, you can (certainly) stop asking me that question b/c I’ve answered it (now) for the fourth time. I have no problem with the fact that our troops are fighting to win the peace in Iraq, and by setting up democracy in a region filled w/ terrorists, it’s no wonder that some would make it into politics. They are not going to win though, just like Hammas and Hezbollah in Lebanon; they’re in the political system, but they’re now exposed and won’t succeed.


Rahdigly 3 Liberals 0

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 11:18 AM
Comment #104201

The terrorist question is muddled and Rahdigly’s scoring is somewhat premature, as not everybody’s playing the game under his rules.

Fact is, many of the people in that part of the world are going to have some terrorist past.
The real question is their present and future. Are they going to be like Arafat, with his continued association with those spilling Israeli blood, or is he going to be like those other former insurgents who got together and formed a little thing we call America, who put aside their revolutionary past and became like Washington (Who in turn emulated Cincinnatus of ancient times, who returned to his farm after serving as Rome’s dictator )

What we need are people willing to give up power to their successors. If we don’t have that covered, Iraq does not have a Democratic future.

I think we can all agree that’s not the right outcome.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 19, 2005 11:32 AM
Comment #104202

Louis:

“…we have Murtha, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and quite a few of the other far left Liberal Democrats…” Posted by: Gopher at December 19, 2005 08:24 AM
None of those you mentioned are far left.Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 08:29 AM

You have a point on Murtha, but Pelosi is further left than much of the Democratic party. And if you don’t consider Teddy Kennedy far left, then I simply don’t know what kind of logic you could possibly be using to arrive at that conclusion.


If the media didn’t exhibit a strong pro-war bias the fact that we’re supporting terrorits in Iraq would be headline news.

You are arguing with one fact in isolation, and then are reaching conclusions off that fact. Allow me to make a relevant comparison for you to explain:

In World War II, the US allegedly made a deal with Charles “Lucky” Luciano, the Mafia Don, to help gain a foothold in Sicily. In return for information, the government allegedly allowed Luciano to run his organization from prison. For our purposes, lets assume this really happened—whether it actually did or not is a separate discussion.

Using your logic, we would need to assume that the US government at the time supported organized crime. The real truth is that the US government needed information for a larger issue (WWII and potential Nazi control of the world), and the guy who had it was a bad guy. So they made an ‘eyes wide open’ calculation and made the deal. The US currently works with Pervez Musharraf—not the best of people. In WWII we aligned with Joe Stalin, one of the world’s most brutal and murderous dictators. Looking at these facts in isolation, as you have done in claiming that the US is supporting terrorists, would lead to the wrong conclusion.

Life can be messy. War always is messy. Fighting criminals or terrorists means getting your hands dirty to some extent. Prosecutors make deals with unsavory characters not because they like them, but because they NEED their information. The good guys dont have the necessary information, so you can’t just hang out with the good guys. You have to get in the mud with the bad guys to an extent.

That is the point you are missing, Louis.

P.S. When you are posting, it makes it much easier if you use the block quotes or some means of isolating quotes from others from your own. It will make your posts easier to understand, if you’d take the time to do so. Thanks in advance

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 19, 2005 11:39 AM
Comment #104203

Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists. More journalists have already died in Iraq than all of Vietnam. As a result, most journalists either cover the story from the safety of the Green Zone, or cover it under the protection of our troops. As a result, there is very little ‘news’ coming from journalists in Iraq. Most rely on the US government to provide them information, or US soldiers to protect them while they gather it; so in that sense, the news is biased towards the administration. Once received, the information from the government may be slanted one way or another, so it may reveal a liberal or conservative bias in that sense. But the story itself has already been framed by the government. The issue has been pre-determined. The topic for discussion has been given. An impartial observer would conclude the news from Iraq is fundamentally biased towards US government positions, and secondarily biased by the reporter repeating the story provided.

Posted by: phx8 at December 19, 2005 11:42 AM
Comment #104206

Regarding the UCLA study: it is impossible to tell from the new release how valid it is. For example, the release does not justify why “average bias” should be the mathematical average of the two extremes. Nor do they give standard deviations for that or any of their other averages.

The release says that they counted the number of times a media outlet mentioned think tanks and policy groups and compared that to those of policy makers. However, they do not define similar. The release does not mention whether these similarities were based just on the instituions mentioned or on the number of times they were mentioned; does mentioning the NAACP 10 times counts the same as mentioning it 100 times or does it count 1/10th as much?

I hope that the full report addresses these issues. If it does, then it has a good chance of being right, but it is a bit misleading to state the study as fact while linking to just the press release.

Posted by: Erika at December 19, 2005 11:44 AM
Comment #104210
Louis, “…we have Murtha, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and quite a few of the other far left Liberal Democrats…” Posted by: Gopher at December 19, 2005 08:24 AM None of those you mentioned are far left.Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 08:29 AM You have a point on Murtha, but Pelosi is further left than much of the Democratic party. And if you don’t consider Teddy Kennedy far left, then I simply don’t know what kind of logic you could possibly be using to arrive at that conclusion.

Posted by joebagodonuts at December 19, 2005 11:39 AM

Jbod,
You’ve pointed out a major problem with our country. Kennedy is not “far left,” he is “left”. Reagan perverted our lexicon to pretend the “far right” is really center; that is the cause of the difficulties in our current discourse. You like to think BushCo is only “conservative,” but if you really compared political philosophies you’d find they are radical neo-conservatives (i.e. way way right, meaning very bloody wrong).

Posted by: Dave at December 19, 2005 11:56 AM
Comment #104217

Dave:

Every group has a vested interest in being percieved as close to center. That’s why politicians move to the center during election cycles (you can see Hillary Clinton preparing herself for ‘08 as we speak).

I have a friend who is for gay marriages, for gun control, for abortion in general and certainly for the choice to have an abortion, and does not believe in any higher being (making him an atheist). He also considers himself “just barely” left of center.

I’m not stating an opinion on the correctness of his choice of beliefs, just simply that in each of those issues, he is left of center. For instance, 90%+ of Americans believe in some kind of higher power or being. My friend is in the less than 10% who believe in no higher power or being. The majority of Americans are against gay marriages. Yet my friend bucks that statistic as well.

He wants to be in the middle, but it just isn’t so. He is well left of center. He may be correct or incorrect in his beliefs, he may think differently or the same as you or I, but that isn’t the issue. The fact is that he is well left of center.

Allow me to ask two questions of you: 1) Where would you rank Kennedy on a scale of 1-100, with 1 being far left and 100 being far right? 2) Which politicians would you consider to be far left (name several)? Thanks

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at December 19, 2005 12:14 PM
Comment #104221

I believe the liberal media is trying to have it both ways, they support the ” we can’t win” mentality of the radical Liberal/Socialist wing of the government, and they B.S. everyone with this ” We support the troops” garbage. Murtha, Pelosi, Dean, and those Kerry types want the USA to lose at all times when they have no power. The worse thing in the world for them and the mainstream media is that we may be right when the Republicans are on the watch. Most people in the USA don’t realize that more people have died in war and terrorist attacks when the Democrats control the white flag. I for one believe whole heartily that finishing the job hurts our enemies. Surrendering to them brings more death later on. Remember how Carter, Clinton, Johnson handled war/ terrorism? Pass it on to the next guy and blame them for any imagined failures, thats the Democrat way.

Posted by: George A. Casper at December 19, 2005 12:23 PM
Comment #104229

George,
“I for one believe whole heartily that finishing the job hurts our enemies. Surrendering to them brings more death later on. Remember how Carter, Clinton, Johnson handled war/ terrorism?Pass it on to the next guy and blame them for any imagined failures, thats the Democrat way.”

Right on! Right on!!


Stephen Daugherty,
“Rahdigly’s scoring is somewhat premature, as not everybody’s playing the game under his rules.”“

FYI, you have nothing to do with the scoring. That’s just for 3 individuals that have whined, cried, name called, boycotted, dodged questions (constantly) and just flat out wasted my time and everyone else’s for that matter. So, don’t worry about the scoring.


Dave,
“Kennedy is not “far left,” he is “left”. Reagan perverted our lexicon to pretend the “far right” is really center; that is the cause of the difficulties in our current discourse.”

So, who do you consider far left? How many people and what are their names? Who’s moderate? This ought to be good.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 12:52 PM
Comment #104233

JBOD;

It’s not a matter of “interest”, it’s a matter of being unable to provide a subjective perspective and seperating social vs economic and political (inter)national ideaologies.
I’m to the left on social, the center on economic, and the right on international. I probably average a 40/45 in the scale below. You are about a 65/70. The problem is, you seem to think you’re a 55.
As for your friend, you give a very limited set of preferences. If he is for fiscal responsibility and realistic balance between environment and business (preferencing environment), and respecting other nations while maintaining our own self interests, then he is probably a bit left of center. Most americans are for choice and against state religion, many (not yet a majority) for gay marriage. Oh, religion does not a liberal/conservative divider.

My scaling:
Benito M 90
GW Bush 80
McCain 60
Hillary 40
Kennedy 35
Dean 30
V Chavez 20
Che G 10

And your ratings jbod?
Not interested in rahdugly.

Posted by: Dave at December 19, 2005 12:58 PM
Comment #104239

“Not interested in rahdugly.”


Uhhh, ok. I’m really, really hurt now. :O(

Guess you couldn’t find anyone that’s “far left”. I can though: Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Boxer, and Durbin for starters.

Chew on that!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 1:16 PM
Comment #104243

Dave:

fiscal responsibility and realistic balance between environment and business

The problem with comments like this is that the idea of realistic balance is different for different people. Most people want some balance between environment and business, but disagree vehemently on where that balance is. I think I’m pretty balanced on that issue, and you probably think that you are as well, but I’d also bet that our opinions are different. So it tells us little.

I’d note as well that you positioned yourself within 5 points of the center, while positioning me 15 points from the center. That fits perfectly in with my statement that we all want to consider ourselves close to center, and certainly closer to center than others would consider us. That being said, I’d rank myself around the 60 number, but I’d also put you around the 40 number, from our limited engagement.

I’d skew the numbers a bit differently for the people you mentioned. For instance, I’d have Bush around 70 and McCain at 55. Hillary (the candidate) would be at 45, while Hillary (the reality would be around 35, with Teddy and Dean relatively close together in the high 20’s.

But without disrespecting your numbers or mine, we have them positioned in the same line on the graph. The difference is just in how we perceive where on the graph they go.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 19, 2005 1:26 PM
Comment #104248

JBOD,

I think I tried to apply neutrality.
For example: Environment
0 = avid tree hugger, no industry if there is pollution
50 = Incoporate net society loss/gain in equation. Balance environmental impacts with pollution mitigations.
100= business above all else, screw the owls, disband the EPA.


Maybe you should come up with a L/R questionaire?

Posted by: Dave at December 19, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #104260

Dave

chart also shows the problem of two dimensional figures.

Take two non-Americans, Mussolini and Chavez, on your chart in their behavior and even their rhetoric, they are very close together and in their corporatist form of governing, they are almost identical. Yet your chart puts them on opposite ends.

Each believed in his own personality. Neither trusted business and both wanted to state to manage the economy. Both claimed to speak for the masses of people against the elites. Both believed the “the people” spoke through groups, rather than individuals.

If without naming them and adujusting for time and place someone described their goals and methods, you could not tell them apart.

Beyond that:

I am conservative. I have always believed in a realistic balance between business and environment. So do most major corporations. GE will now assess its managers on “sustainability”. BP is looking into alternative energy.

Most Americans are for choice WITH restrictions. Small percentages on the left and right are for either abortion on demand or no abortion at all. Almost no Americans favor a state religion. A significant majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. Even in “liberal” states the votes went almost two-to-one against where it was on the ballot.

You need a multivariate analysis to understand Americans. Left and right don’t work.

You mention environment. It has become a code word for collectivism and state control. If you talk about making the environment cleaner, you would have liberals and conservatives arrayed on both sides. I would match my environmental credentials with anyone in terms of actually planting trees, protecting wetlands, energy conservation etc. But if you talk about various government controls, not all of them work as they should. The command and control methods that worked well in the early cleanup stages now must be supplemented by market methods. As I asked in another post (where I described how business was helping clean the environment), if you make money loving the earth, are you still virtuous?

Posted by: Jack at December 19, 2005 2:15 PM
Comment #104269

Did anybody see that the house appoved of drilling in ANWAR last night? Nice.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0421_050421_alaskadrilling.html

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 2:23 PM
Comment #104280

Correction, I sent a link for the ANWAR bill from April 2005. Ooops! Here’s the link from last night:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051219-123845-7066r.htm


I like how they put it in with the budget cuts and defense spending bill . Nice!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 2:36 PM
Comment #104283

Hi Jay,

“You DID NOT answer the question Louis”

I did. You can’t deal with facts.

“Your assertion that the Iraqi govt is riddled with terrorists would be the same as my assertion that the ACLU is riddled with child molesters based on affiliation.”

How dare you use the word “logic” to apply to the nonsense you’re spouting.

Fact: The ACLU is comprized of mostly Jews.

Fact: The ACLU has defended Nazis.

Fact: The ACLU has defended Christian fundamentalists.

Going by the bullshit you’re spouting the ACLU are Jewish/Nazi/Christian fundamentalists.

Why don’t you stop spouting bullshit?

“Please explain then why the terrorists continue fighting the terrorists if in fact they are ascending to power?”

I’m stating facts here Jay. The fact is that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces are riddled with terrorists.

You’re dancing around the facts here Jay. You’re siding with those (right wing spin drs) who want the truth about what’s going in Iraq suppressed. Truth suppression is the basis for many attacks on the NYT and other major news outlets.

I’m not saying that any news source is always right. I’m saying that you’re on the side of suppressing the truth about what is going on in Iraq.

If you care to discuss what’s going on in Iraq let me know. Can you stop dancing around?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 2:41 PM
Comment #104284

When did Fox become liberal? Or aren’t they media? I really hate blanket statements like that as it portrays the whole spectrum as one entity. There are plenty of conservative publications in this nation that the whole liberal media thing is a bit old. If indeed one does subscribe to the whole liberal bias thing fine, but consider this. In a free enterprise system the market determines what works. If the media is indeed liberal it must be because the market determined it would rather read the liberal NY Times than the conservative Washington Post. Unless conservatives no longer believe in capitalism they must live with the results of it.

As far as the free Iraq idea goes there is a big differance between having a constitution and having freedom. Iran has a constitution. I doubt anyone would consider their citizens free. From everything I’ve read the Iraqi constitution is more like the Iranian one than ours. What seems to be happening is we are fighting to help Iraq become a version of an Iranian Islamic state.

Posted by: zakquiet at December 19, 2005 2:42 PM
Comment #104288

Hi joebagodonuts,

“And if you don’t consider Teddy Kennedy far left, then I simply don’t know what kind of logic you could possibly be using to arrive at that conclusion.”

If you want to make a case I encourage you to do so. Until then I’ll assume you’re spouting right wing propaganda.

“In World War II, the US allegedly made a deal with Charles “Lucky” Luciano, the Mafia Don, to help gain a foothold in Sicily. In return for information, the government allegedly allowed Luciano to run his organization from prison. For our purposes, lets assume this really happened—whether it actually did or not is a separate discussion.”

Do you agree that we’re at war with terrorists? If so then don’t you think it’s odd, to say the least, that our soldiers are fighting and dying to support terrorists?

“Using your logic, we would need to assume that the US government at the time supported organized crime.”

The fact is that it was in a small way. The military wasn’t at war with Lucky at the time.

The point is that supporting terrrorists may not work. We’ve got most of our military resources supporting terrorists and that isn’t the best use for our military.

Democracy isn’t a panacea against terrorism. Our Iraq policy assumes that it is. Our Iraq policy is based on stupidity.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 2:47 PM
Comment #104291
After exactly one-half hour of ‘news’ about my city I was ready to move. If I got all my information from watching the local evening news I’d have a pretty grim picture of where I live.

Eric, thanks for repeating Michael Moore’s thesis in “Bowling for Columbine”. I always knew you two were on the same page.

I cannot remember a single positive story about Iraq in the last year from the MSM. Not one.

Well, that’s very interesting Eric since the end of your post quotes a very positive article from the main stream media. I guess you could say that the BBC doesn’t qualify, so are you willing to say that the BBC is a fair and balanced source of news that shouldn’t be questioned along the lines of bias? I didn’t think so.

Do I really need to link to a dozen (or hundreds) of media reports in the US portraying the Iraqi elections as good news? I didn’t think so.

The UCLA has done an interesting media study comparing news outlets with members of congress and found that indeed the news media is heavily tilted to the left.

An interesting study if you read the whole PR, and not just Eric’s handpicked quotes. The study claims to be able to quantify the political center of the country by looking at speeches from members of Congress. Considering Congress has a incredibly poor approval rating, this type of analysis seems dubious at best. But then all you have to do is look at the conclusions.

Eric doesn’t mention that the study indicates that the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal news source in the country. Yes, you read that right. Ok, it’s now safe to dismiss the rest of the study out of hand.

But then it is precisely this aspect of the war that they do not seem to understand. The moral aspect. The battle for hearts and minds.

Eric, you are so consistently disingenuous that it is hard to tell when you actually mean what you say, but here you surely must be joking. The reason the left has been so appalled by the way the administration has handled this war from the beginning is precisely because we understand that foremost this is a battle for hearts and minds.

You can’t win the battle for hearts and minds by arrogantly thumbing your nose at the international community. You can’t win the battle for hearts and minds by belittling the importance of torture allegations such as Abu Grahib. And you can’t win the battle for hearts and minds without providing basic security and services for people, allowing terrorists to enter their country freely, and generally making a huge mess of the place.

Posted by: Burt at December 19, 2005 2:48 PM
Comment #104292

Hi rahdigly,

“YES!”

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

I don’t want the sons and daughters of America to fight and die to support terrorists.

You do want the sons and daughters of America to fight and die to support terrorists.

Can we agree to disagree?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 2:49 PM
Comment #104295

“Please explain then why the terrorists continue fighting the terrorists if in fact they are ascending to power?”

First of all according to Bush there are three distict groups of “terrorist”
The first is the Baathist who are loyal to Hussein.
The second is the foreign terrorists.
The third are the insugents who are fighting a foreign power who is occupying their country. These are legitimate fighters and not really terrorists in the strict sense of the word.

It isn’t surprising at all these three very distict groups would fight each other as much as they fight us. Much like Osama and Saddam had a common enemy (US) but were separate entities and not at all ideologically alligned. As Saddam’s government was secular and Osama is fighting to establish an Islamic middle east they actually could not work together. That is why Saddam didn’t allow Al-Queda cells in Iraq when he was in charge. It was a threat to his power.

I hope this clears up your question Jay.

Posted by: zakquiet at December 19, 2005 2:54 PM
Comment #104309

Louis,
“I don’t want the sons and daughters of America to fight and die to support terrorists. You do want the sons and daughters of America to fight and die to support terrorists.

Can we agree to disagree?”


Yes, we definitely can agree to disagree on that issue! Just stop asking me that question over and over, please. Thanks.

I support the troops and their Mission! I don’t want the sons and daughters of America to give up on their mission b/c there are some terrorists in the Iraqi gov’t. Uh, hello. It’s the middle east, there are plenty of terrorists there and, yes, they’re in gov’t. As for Al Sadr, we were on the verge of killing his fat, bulbous a$$ until the Iraqi gov’t decided to handle it diplomatically. Hey, it’s their call; he did end up throwing down his weapons though.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 3:07 PM
Comment #104311

Hi rahdigly,

Can you understand why I think supporting terrorists is a bad idea?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 3:09 PM
Comment #104314

Hi rahdigly,

Can you understand why I think supporting terrorists is a bad idea?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #104317

You mention environment. It has become a code word for collectivism and state control.
Posted by Jack at December 19, 2005 02:15 PM
================================================
that’s jingoism at it’s most banal. Collectivism? Like communism? What a load of crap. It’s like saying if you don’t care about the environment, then you don’t care about your children.

Posted by: Dave at December 19, 2005 3:12 PM
Comment #104322

Hi Dave,

That “collectivism” nonsense is one of several ways right wingers have for calling everybody who disagrees with them a communist.

“Anybody who disagrees with me is a communist” is as weak an argument as I’ve ever seen.

I’m here to discuss ideas. The “idea” about labeling those you disagree with as communists gives a bad name to the concept of discussing ideas.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 3:17 PM
Comment #104330

Hi Louis…

I think our goal should be to take back the English language first.

Posted by: Dave at December 19, 2005 3:27 PM
Comment #104334

Hi Dave,

Rampant right wing spin is the enemy of clear thought in all it’s forms.

I’m here with hopes of discussing ideas and I’m getting a lot of spiteful drivel.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #104349

Louis,
“Can you understand why I think supporting terrorists is a bad idea?”


No and, no offense, I don’t care. That’s why I agreed to disagree. For whatever your reasons are they are your reasons and we’ve come to an end of the road with this particular topic. Let’s just agree to disagree and move on. Thanks.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 3:54 PM
Comment #104351

Dave

Collectivism is not the same as communism. It can be much broader. It is simply a system that makes decisions based on group membership rather than individual initiative. Both fascism and communism are collectivist, but collectivism does not have to be either of those. All societies have aspects of collective action and most also feature individual initiative. It is a matter of degrees.

And Louis - read more carefully. I didn’t call anyone a communist and in fact wrote a whole post explaining why liberals were NOT commmunists.

If you guys don’t like the word, I don’t have to use it. Just take the second part - state control. Do you think it is possible to be a good environmentalist and not believe in strong state control? Or my original question: if you make money doing it, is loving the earth still virtuous?

Posted by: Jack at December 19, 2005 3:55 PM
Comment #104352

Hi rahdigly,

“I don’t care.”

Rest assured I don’t believe in supporting terrorism.

Because you do believe in supporting terrorism I think less of you….I’m sure you have many fine qualities but supporting terrorism isn’t behavior I approve of.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #104357

Hi Jack,

“Do you think it is possible to be a good environmentalist and not believe in strong state control?”

Yes!

Rush Limbaugh is completely wrong for calling all enviorenmentalists communists. Those who follow Rush are made stupider for buying into his views.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 4:00 PM
Comment #104383

Environmentalist? It should be terrorist regime supporting anti- americans, enjoying the advantages of this country. I don’t know 1 eco- terrorist that refuses to drive a car or live in a house heated by electricity or refuse to use paper to scrawl messages protesting cutting down trees. I believe eco- terrorists are dis-placed Communists with an agenda to destroy human kind. Eco- communist/ terrorists are hypocrits with no sense. Most humans know not to shit where they sleep, since Communism is dying, give it time Eco- Communist/ terrorism will die out too. The usefulness of these parasites will wear out, just like liberalism will. Remember, Liberalsim is just Communism in slow motion!

Posted by: George at December 19, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #104389

Hi George,

“Liberalsim is just Communism in slow motion!”

Calling everybody who disagrees with you a communist doesn’t say much for your understanding of the world there George.

Do you listen to Rush Hannity and actually believe the crap they spew?….I’m just curious.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 4:36 PM
Comment #104393

Hi George,

“Liberalsim is just Communism in slow motion!”

Calling everybody who disagrees with you a communist doesn’t say much for your understanding of the world there George.

Do you listen to Rush Hannity and actually believe the crap they spew?….I’m just curious.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 4:38 PM
Comment #104397

I didn’t call anyone a communist, I have a right to say what I believe about a corrupt ideology. Why is it that anyone that believes contrary to you is stupid and or ignorant? I call it the way I see it, not what someone else sees. eco/ terrorism is a threat to our future. Its good to care about the environment, but american know- how can get what we need. Liberal, and eco/ communists can call names in the name of free speech, but when people that don’t believe as they do, its because they are stupid or ignorant or even brainwashed. why don’t you drive you gas eating car back to your house made of trees and eat some meat.

Posted by: George A. Casper at December 19, 2005 4:44 PM
Comment #104399

Hi George,

“Environmentalist? It should be terrorist regime supporting anti- americans, enjoying the advantages of this country.”

Why are you bringing your mother into this.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 4:44 PM
Comment #104408

“I believe eco- terrorists are dis-placed Communists with an agenda to destroy human kind. Eco- communist/ terrorists are hypocrits with no sense. Most humans know not to shit where they sleep, since Communism is dying, give it time Eco- Communist/ terrorism will die out too. The usefulness of these parasites will wear out, just like liberalism will. Remember, Liberalsim is just Communism in slow motion!”

Memo to conservatives I promise not to lump you all together with this goof. Please do me the same with regard to the extreme nutbags that happen to troll the left. I’m convinced most of us aren’t paranoid conspiacy theorists regardless of our ideolgy. I noticed no one has touched my points. Am I that far off with my thoughts as to not even merit a response? Or is it just hard to argue with?

Posted by: zakquiet at December 19, 2005 4:49 PM
Comment #104409

Hi George,

“I didn’t call anyone a communist”

You called a whole lot of people communists. Would you like me to quote you again on the matter?

“I have a right to say what I believe about a corrupt ideology.”

Of course you have the right to call everybody who disagrees with you communists. It doesn’t say much for your ability to understand the world but it is well withing your rights to do that.

“why don’t you drive you gas eating car back to your house made of trees and eat some meat.”

Back at you!



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 4:49 PM
Comment #104412

My mother was an army nurse veteran during the Korean war, I’m sure she didn’t support the Communists. I know she doesn’t support the Communist faction of eco- terrorism.

Posted by: George A. Casper at December 19, 2005 4:51 PM
Comment #104414

Hi George,

My mother isn’t a terrorist or a communist as you just claimed she was.

Why don’t you stop calling everybody who disagrees with you terrorists and communists?

Your accusations don’t say much for your honesty or your ability to understand ideas.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 4:54 PM
Comment #104432

George,

Thanks for stopping by and commenting. If it weren’t for people like you, I’d occassionally think I might be wrong.

Posted by: Burt at December 19, 2005 5:12 PM
Comment #104440

LouisXIV,

There is a strong pro-war bias in the media.

Demonstrably false. What you have in the news media is a wariness to be openly perceived as being against the war. This is not the same as being pro-war at all. Part of pretending to be a disinterested objective journalist is avoiding outright advocacy.

Our troops are fighting and dying in Iraq supporting terrorists in the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces.

I think you’ve mentioned this before and it’s a bit of a slippery statement isn’t it? I’m sure that supporting terrorism is the first objective of the Bush administration?

What logic is this statement based on? That Iraqi’s are terrorists?

If the media didn’t exhibit a strong pro-war bias the fact that we’re supporting terrorits in Iraq would be headline news.

Since you are basing your belief that the media is pro-war on the false statement that we are supporting terrorists in Iraq both statements are identifiably wrong.

Many on the right don’t want the media to tell the truth about Iraq and are attacking the media on that basis.

The truth in Iraq doesn’t support the right wing spin on what’s going on there.

Or we are rightly upset by the biased coverage and would like to see the news media do it’s job, which is to report the news.

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 5:21 PM
Comment #104460

Hi Eric,

“Demonstrably false.”

It’s quite true and I gave an example.

“I think you’ve mentioned this before and it’s a bit of a slippery statement isn’t it?”

We are supporting terrorists in Iraq. We’re paying them and giving them tactical support. It’s not slippery….it’s an obvious fact.

“What logic is this statement based on?”

It’s based on the fact that the Iraqi government and military are riddled with terrorists and we are supporting them.

Once again let me make clear that this is a fact rather than my opinion.

“Since you are basing your belief that the media is pro-war on the false statement that we are supporting terrorists in Iraq both statements are identifiably wrong.”

Both statements are right.
http://www.forward.com/articles/7031

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051214/3/2celw.html

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13391616.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-key-players-iq1,1,436104.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

“Or we are rightly upset by the biased coverage and would like to see the news media do it’s job, which is to report the news.”

There is very little evidence that the right wing wants the truth about us supporting terrorists to be general knowledge. Even though it’s an undisputable fact you don’t hear Limbaugh or Hannity mention it.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 5:39 PM
Comment #104464

Hi Eric,

“Demonstrably false.”

It’s quite true and I gave an example.

“I think you’ve mentioned this before and it’s a bit of a slippery statement isn’t it?”

We are supporting terrorists in Iraq. We’re paying them and giving them tactical support. It’s not slippery….it’s an obvious fact.

“What logic is this statement based on?”

It’s based on the fact that the Iraqi government and military are riddled with terrorists and we are supporting them.

Once again let me make clear that this is a fact rather than my opinion.

“Since you are basing your belief that the media is pro-war on the false statement that we are supporting terrorists in Iraq both statements are identifiably wrong.”

Both statements are right.
http://www.forward.com/articles/7031

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051214/3/2celw.html

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13391616.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-key-players-iq1,1,436104.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

“Or we are rightly upset by the biased coverage and would like to see the news media do it’s job, which is to report the news.”

There is very little evidence that the right wing wants the truth about us supporting terrorists to be general knowledge. Even though it’s an undisputable fact you don’t hear Limbaugh or Hannity mention it.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 5:42 PM
Comment #104466

Thanks for the Liberal double talk, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Amin, Castro, Saddam and the like would be proud of you, They all could have used allies like yourselves.

Posted by: George at December 19, 2005 5:42 PM
Comment #104480

Hi George,

Your view of those who disagree with you is really odd.

Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn’t mean they side with brutatl dicators……there is lots of in-between here.

Do you really believe the nonsense you just posted?

Posted by: Louis at December 19, 2005 5:56 PM
Comment #104483

I believe the biggest allies worldwide terrorism and brutal dictatorships have is Liberal/ Democrat ideologies, thats all.

Posted by: George at December 19, 2005 5:59 PM
Comment #104486

LouisXIV,

“If Louis is correct, why would the terrorists be fighting democracy?”

Some are fighting Democracy in Iraq. Other terrorists were voted in by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi security forces are riddled with terrorists as well.

Elections obviously aren’t a cure for terrorism in the Middle East. Hamas just did really well in Palestianian elections.

Ah, finally an admission that democracy just doesn’t work for everybody. They were better off under fascist dictators then? Can I take that as a statement in support of fascism? Since we are supporting terrorists by opposing fascist dictators?

Basically the left’s premise has been that Bush has committed heresy for daring to apply the same standards of freedom to human beings who happen to live in another part of the world. Are the same freedoms we enjoy here in the United States too good for the people of the middle east or not good enough?

Why shouldn’t democracy be a cure for terrorism? Is the cure then more fascist dictatorships? Since we were perfectly safe with Saddam in power, why not instead of deposing him, set up more dictators throughout the middle east who can ‘control’ their populations so that we can be safe from terrorism.

Stephen,

I agree that being realistic means not choosing negative or positive in a story, but simply reporting the facts. But that’s not what Eric wants. He wants the positive to be reported to the exclusion of the negative. Why else continually insist upon such trivial measures of victory like opened schools and anecdotes of people on the street?

What I actually want is to see the progress. I see pictures and stories from people who are actually there in Iraq but it’s all from non-news media sources. The news media themselves report that many journalists in Iraq do not leave the green zone. I don’t think that the full story can be told from a hotel by reporting bombings that happened in other parts of the country.

The reality is, the media is biased- towards disaster and death, battle and conflict. In that vein of thought, you can reconcile the entire war’s coverage, favorable and unfavorable.

I agree, this is more than half the problem. The other half though is that a majority of journalists have already made up their minds and many are in fact reporting from the United States based on wire service reports from reporters sitting in the green zone writing stories about reports of attacks happening somewhere else. Is it too much to ask that this be looked at and considered?

The right isn’t going to help things, though, by trying to paint a rose-tinted picture of things. It’s a dreams our primitive minds keep trying to wake up from, to paraphrase Agent Smith from The Matrix What we need is a story that has the virtue of being as true as we can get it, with positive and negative details together in the soundest possible interpretation. Whichever direction it leans, it needs to lean there organically.

What we need is not cheerleading. Americans are too sophisticated nowadays about the media to trust that for long without its vindication. No, what we need is an honest accounting that gives us the information we need to decide things for ourselves. Manipulation will only deepen the anger and resentment of people towards this war.

Respect people’s intelligence, or you may find yourself at the business end of their disbelief.

No, when your troops are engaged in war we should be impartial and not take sides. ?!

What I disagree with is this idea that having a positive attitude and supporting the mission is an attempt to manipulate public opinion. Such a standard was not adhered to in WWII, for instance, and I submit that this is the reason the left opens itself up to charges of wanting us to lose. You may honestly believe that this is a proper standard - to suppress ‘cheerleading’ as something anathema to democracy and rational thinking but it goes deeper than that.

If you have a stake in winning, how can you not be supportive? Conversely, to be cold and detached about waiting to see, “Whichever direction it [the war] leans,” is a discription of someone who, at best, doesn’t seem to care if we do lose. This is precisely the problem that democrats have put themselves into. Vote for the war, then refuse to support it. As soon as it looks like there’s a possibility that it’s not going well abandon the mission and begin a campaign to convince everyone that all is lost.

This is where we are and it is not an honest accounting.

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 6:01 PM
Comment #104489

Democrats Have established a history of not finishing the mission. Just give up and make a bigger mess for the next guy when it might be hard, just as Clinton, Carter and Johnson did. The new Democrat flag should be all white with the emblem of a chicken in the middle, or at least to the left. We are in the process of winning in Iraq, terrorism is the enemy, too bad you believe otherwise Libs.

Posted by: George at December 19, 2005 6:11 PM
Comment #104495

if terrorism was the enemy we should have finished the job in Afghanistan. As I recall that is were Osama is. But no Iraq needed to be invaded even though there were no terrorists there. WEll until we didn’t secure the boarders that is. Of course it must be the democrats that decided it wasn’t important to finish that job right?

Posted by: zakquiet at December 19, 2005 6:20 PM
Comment #104498

“Because you do believe in supporting terrorism I think less of you…I’m sure you have many fine qualities but supporting terrorism isn’t behavior I approve of.”


This is exactly what I’m talking about, I agree to disagree and you go and take a cheap shot like that. I don’t believe in supporting terrorism; I believe in our troops’ mission and their mission is to rid the terrorists and stabilize Iraq so the Iraqis can set up their own (DEMOCRATIC) gov’t and operate (politically and defensively) on their own. Period.

Now, if you don’t agree with my point of view, fine. However, don’t cast me into a terrorist group (or say I’m supporting terrorism) b/c you have a different point of view and I don’t care exactly what that view is; remember, I said “no offense”. It’s clear that you took offense and your reply was just plain wrong and (WAY) out of line.

Now, I debated with you honestly and respectively. I used your name and didn’t put the “scoreboard” at the bottom to emphasize the seriousness and respect for this particular debate. Remember, I’ve answered this question before (at least 2 times).

So, you are definitely on your own, I have nothing to debate with you anymore. Thanks for playing the game, though. Later!


Rahdigly: 3 liberals: double O nothing!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 6:24 PM
Comment #104506

LouisXIV,

Hi Jay,

“you have lost on every single occasion thus far.”

You’ll support that or admit that you’re lying?

Seriously Jay if you can’t support that bullshit I’d like a retraction.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 10:46 AM

“There you go again.” ~R. Reagan. Seriously Louis, if you can’t stand to have a conversation without throwing around the lying charge then maybe you need to reconsider engaging in the debate at all.

Dave,

Eric: “Everything I thought I knew was wrong.”?

Since that was a very weak effort at sardonic writing, I thought for a second you had actually woken up…

I’ll send you some wipes.

I’ve got my own thanks. Are you running out? I have plenty, I could send you some.


Jay,

You DID NOT answer the question Louis.

I don’t expect that he will. You are a ‘LIAR’ after all. That seems to be the way it goes with Louis. I think he shows some promise but it’s annoying that he thinks name calling ends the debate in his favor.


Stephen,

What we need are people willing to give up power to their successors. If we don’t have that covered, Iraq does not have a Democratic future.

I think we can all agree that’s not the right outcome.

I agree with your point about this Stephen. This principle of being able to give up power peacefully when we lose elections is essential. And it’s possible, even likely that at some point someone in power in Iraq will not want to do it.

I think where we disagree is that I don’t think it’s a mistake to give them a chance to do it right, and have a functioning democracy. After all, history will not end when our troops have left, and we do well to think in the long term assuming that we will continue to advocate for democracy and freedom in Iraq and elsewhere. This is the strategic goal of the war on terror. That you do not win the war by killing all your enemies, but by making them your friends. Isn’t that a liberal statement?

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 6:37 PM
Comment #104513

LouisXIV,

It’s based on the fact that the Iraqi government and military are riddled with terrorists and we are supporting them.

Native Iraqi terrorists?

But I thought Bush made a mistake by invading Iraq because there were no terrorists there?

Besides Iraq isn’t a threat.

There is very little evidence that the right wing wants the truth about us supporting terrorists to be general knowledge. Even though it’s an undisputable fact you don’t hear Limbaugh or Hannity mention it.

Sure, and you’re not a leftist, I remember.

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 6:45 PM
Comment #104516

Hi Eric,

“They were better off under fascist dictators then?”

I said no such thing. I merely pointed out the fact that Democracy hasn’t been shown to stop terrorists.

“Can I take that as a statement in support of fascism? Since we are supporting terrorists by opposing fascist dictators?”

I merely stated a fact. I didn’t say anything about supporting fascist dicators.

There are reasons to think that Democracy isn’t a panacea for terrorism. The fact that terrorists have been elected is one of those reasons.

Can we talk about the facts here Eric?

“Basically the left’s premise has been that Bush has committed heresy for daring to apply the same standards of freedom to human beings who happen to live in another part of the world.”

That isn’t true. Putting most of our military resources into a Democracy experiment in Iraq was an extremely stupid ting to do.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying Democracy shouldn’t be tried. I’m saying that experimenting in Iraq the way we are is a really stupid idea.

“Are the same freedoms we enjoy here in the United States too good for the people of the middle east or not good enough?”

The fact is that terrorists have been elected in the Middle East. Can you address that fact or are you just going to keep spinning?

“Why shouldn’t democracy be a cure for terrorism?”

It should be the cure. It isn’t in many cases though. The facts of the matter aren’t something you’re willing to account for here.

“Why shouldn’t democracy be a cure for terrorism?”

Why don’t you stop dancing for awhile so we can discuss the issues?



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 6:52 PM
Comment #104518

Did anyone see this article about how the media bias is “left” leaning?!

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

“While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.”


“Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 6:55 PM
Comment #104521

Hi Eric,

” if you can’t stand to have a conversation without throwing around the lying charge then maybe you need to reconsider engaging in the debate at all.”

I asked Jay to support the bullshit that he posted about me or admit that he’s lying. He has done neither. If he doesn’t support it then he’s going in for option #2.

“Sure, and you’re not a leftist, I remember.”

I’m not. Why have you been labeling me as one?

The fact is that the Iraqi government and security forces are riddled with terrorists. Can you address that fact or can I expect you to keep dancing around it?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 6:58 PM
Comment #104544

LouisXIV,

I asked Jay to support the bullshit that he posted about me or admit that he’s lying. He has done neither. If he doesn’t support it then he’s going in for option #2.

No, instead of making an argument you chose to call him a liar for expressing his opinion. I guess that’s how we know that you are capitulating. Radighly needs to count the number of times you call someone a liar.

“Sure, and you’re not a leftist, I remember.”

I’m not. Why have you been labeling me as one?

Don’t tell me… Your position is that no one can label you, and if they do they are liars? Nevermind the fact that you freely label others. That’s quite a double standard.

The fact is that the Iraqi government and security forces are riddled with terrorists. Can you address that fact or can I expect you to keep dancing around it?

Unanswered questions

Well, let’s go back to the previous question you refused to answer about whether Afghanistan was an imminent threat before 9/11. You keep saying you answered the question by saying that it was a threat, but you will not answer specifically if it was an imminent threat before 9/11. Any reason you don’t want to go there? Or do you want to continue saying you’ve answered the question fully?

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 8:11 PM
Comment #104558

Esimonson, just a little FYI, you should read my 12:52pm post before you continue wasting your time with certain individuals.


“That’s just for 3 individuals that have whined, cried, name called, boycotted, dodged questions (constantly) and just flat out wasted my time and everyone else’s for that matter.”

Good luck with that “certain” individual…

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 8:53 PM
Comment #104561

Oh yeah, and to those 3 “certain” individuals:

Rahdigly 3 Liberals 0

:O)

Posted by: rahdigly at December 19, 2005 8:57 PM
Comment #104567

Hi Eric,

“No, instead of making an argument you chose to call him a liar for expressing his opinion.”

I chose to ask him to support or retract what he accused me of.

It’s up to the one who makes the accusation to back it up.

“Your position is that no one can label you, and if they do they are liars?”

That is not my postition.

“Well, let’s go back to the previous question you refused to answer about whether Afghanistan was an imminent threat before 9/11.”

I have answered that question at least 7 times and quoted my answers to you several times.

“but you will not answer specifically if it was an imminent threat before 9/11.”

I did answer that. I answered it several times. Why don’t you stop lying about this?

“Any reason you don’t want to go there?”

Only the fact that you keep lying about whether I’ve answered the question.

Here’s another four answers for you.

Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11.

Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11.

Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11.

Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11.

Are you going to keep lying about this?

The Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces are riddled with terrorists who we are supporting.

Can you address this fact or do you plan to keep dancing?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 9:08 PM
Comment #104577

Hi Eric,

I think after all the effort I’ve made answering your question over and over and over and over and over…it’s time for you to explain why you’re asking it.

Why don’t you take it to the next level Eric? Do you have a point or are you merely interested in lying over and over and over and over and over….about whether I’ve answered the question?

I’ve answered the question about 11 times Eric. Are you waiting for more of the same answers to the same question before you make your point?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 9:30 PM
Comment #104588

LouisXIV
You keep saying like a broken record that the Iraqi government is riddled with terrorists. Can you back that up with some names? Not just 2 or 3 but since the government is riddled with terrorists, then you should be able to give a long list. But on the other hand I may have misquoted you and in that case I would be a liar to you also.

Posted by: tomh at December 19, 2005 10:04 PM
Comment #104608

Louis, I have never said that there are not terrorists in what now is a freely elected Iraqi govt. I think that would be hard to avoid in that area. What I am saying is that you can not paint them all with the same broad brush. By bringing them into the process, the hope is to turn them away from terrorism and into constructive politicians/people who respect others sovereignty. I tried the ACLU analogy to show you that although the ACLU is defending the despicable org. of NAMBLA, they are all not child molesters. Apparently, you missed that or maybe it wasn’t that good of an analogy. This is a fairly hopeless attempt though on your part to denigrate the elected govt. in Iraq. What exactly is your point anyway? Are you saying that we should just leave because you don’t like the people the Iraqi people elected?

Posted by: Jay at December 19, 2005 10:47 PM
Comment #104613

Louis:

Until then I’ll assume you’re spouting right wing propaganda.

I’d have liked the opportunity to have a good discussion of our differing viewpoints, but after seeing your difficulty in doing so with several others, and now seeing how quickly you resorted to silly assumptions after just one post from me, I’m getting the idea that a civil conversation with you is not in the cards.

Perhaps at another time, you’ll look harder for areas of agreement and not resort to comments like the one above. I’ll hope we find such a time.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 19, 2005 11:17 PM
Comment #104624

Louis,

Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11.

Finally. See how simple and easy that was? I don’t know why it was so hard for you to say. Or why you thought your previous statements meant the same thing. I think I’ll keep it one question at a time so that you can focus on the answers.

You agree that Afghanistan was an imminent threat before 9/11… 2nd Question: was this imminent threat sufficient to have justified an invasion before 9/11?

Posted by: esimonson at December 20, 2005 12:03 AM
Comment #104629

My boloney has a first name, it’s N-A-N-C-Y

My boloney has a second name, it’s P-E-L-O-S-I

I hate to listen everyday

To what this woman has to say

Cause Nancy seems to have a way

With B-O-L-O-G-N-A

Posted by: Tim Godfrey at December 20, 2005 12:18 AM
Comment #104726

Eric,
You asked

You agree that Afghanistan was an imminent threat before 9/11… 2nd Question: was this imminent threat sufficient to have justified an invasion before 9/11?

No, due to the Nature of the Problem it was an NSA/Law Enforcement problem that given certain “Support” and “Lack of Oversight” by Congress in 1998-2000 9/11 may of never happened. However, putting the political spotlight on the Administration limits ones ability to “Play in the Dark.” What 9/11 did was demondtrate that our government is not “Prefect.” And damm all OBL would of had to do is ask the Average American and don’t you believe that “We Know That.” One of these days we need to have a political debate over what is Right by “We the People” because these two political parties can’t figure it out. And I’m still not sure even if most of them understand what the War on Terror is about? Can you tell me? Sounds like a real good reason to get rid of the Incumbents that still don’t “Get It, Stupid” in 2006.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 20, 2005 7:43 AM
Comment #104750

Tim, thanks for the AM belly laugh, that was hysterical.

Henry, Islamic Jihadists represent much much more than a law enforcement issue and their roots go much deeper than 1998. The entire civilized world has had their collective heads buried in the sand for far too long and this cancer on society grew to the proportions we see today. We have excused away and ignored every warning sign and attack since the 1972 Munich Games and now we are forced to confront a much larger threat. IMHO, the jihadist movement stems for a perverted translation of Islam and the lack of opportunity in the Arab world. We must confront this threat with unwavering strength and continued compassion towards the majority of the good people in the middle east. The rest of the civilized world will rally behind us if we remain resolved in our efforts, they only become nervouse when we show weakness because we are really the only country that can truly help the Arab world defeat this cancer.

Posted by: Jay at December 20, 2005 9:40 AM
Comment #105001

Louis….?

You agree that Afghanistan was an imminent threat before 9/11… 2nd Question: was this imminent threat sufficient to have justified an invasion before 9/11?

Helloooo….


Henry Schlattman,

No? It’s was a law enforcement problem? But what US law did Afghanistan break before 9/11? And furthermore… ditto what Jay just said.

Posted by: esimonson at December 20, 2005 3:30 PM
Comment #105022

BushCo apologists

Look, the idea BushCo and the neocons were selling is that they could by force depose Saddam and create a Western-style democracy in the heart of the Middle East to serve as a beacon to enlighten the heathens. What they are getting, besides a hornets’ nest of terrorist recruitment, is an Islamist government that will ally with Iran (remember, one-third of the axis of evil?). But now, you’re just happy they had a vote, never mind that they voted the way their cleric told them to and that the NY Times had a photo of a smiling Iraqi with all his fingers inked explaining that he “voted for all his family members.” You will never, ever under any circumstance admit that this was a fiasco and a bungle, regardless of the outcome, because your guy did it. End of story.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 20, 2005 3:57 PM
Comment #105134

Hi joebagodonuts,

“And if you don’t consider Teddy Kennedy far left, then I simply don’t know what kind of logic you could possibly be using to arrive at that conclusion.”

You’re making the assertion. It’s up to you to support it. If you can support it why not do so?

It sounds like right wing propaganda to me. If you can support it then go for it.

All I did was asked you to support your assertion. Why is that considered uncivil?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 20, 2005 6:37 PM
Comment #105139

Hi Jay,

“This is a fairly hopeless attempt though on your part to denigrate the elected govt. in Iraq.”

How is it hopeless to be against supporting terrorists?

Why can’t I point out an obvious truth here?

Our troops are fighting and dying to support Arab terrorists. I don’t approve.

“I tried the ACLU analogy to show you that although the ACLU is defending the despicable org. of NAMBLA, they are all not child molesters.”

The ACLU isn’t giving them money and logistical support. The ACLU isn’t sending American troops to fight and die supporting NAMBLA.

The terrorists are winning in Iraq. The Supreme Council for Islamic revolution and Al Sadr’s guys are ahead in the election.

“What I am saying is that you can not paint them all with the same broad brush.”

Al Sadr has 30 people on the Shiite slate. Al Sadr is a vicious terrorist. Whatever “brush” you want to use Al Sadr is a vicious terrorist.

What is wrong with not wanting to support terrorists Jay?



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 20, 2005 6:44 PM
Comment #105143

Hi Eric,

“Finally.”

I’ve answered your question many times. Why can’t you be honest about this?

“2nd Question: was this imminent threat sufficient to have justified an invasion before 9/11?”

I have answered that question too.

Do you have a point here or do you plan to continue ask the same questions over and over and over and over then continue lie about whether I’ve anserwed them?

It’s extremely obvious that Afghanistan was an immediate threat to us that warrented an attack. I’ve said that all along.

Do you have a point here or can I expect you to keep dancing and lying?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 20, 2005 6:49 PM
Comment #105355

Louis:

And if you don’t consider Teddy Kennedy far left, then I simply don’t know what kind of logic you could possibly be using to arrive at that conclusion.”

You’re making the assertion. It’s up to you to support it. If you can support it why not do so?

Actually, YOU asserted that Teddy is not far left, with no support for your statement. I simply challenged you on it.

Now, do you really really want to hide behind that kind of argument? I thought better of you than that. You make a statement, then hide behind semantics? You call my question “right wing propaganda” and then hide behind the proof argument?

Louis, I have enough conversations with my 10th grade daughter that follow this kind of logic. It’s lazy and unprovable. You make a statement and then hold me accountable for it. You know you were impugning my comments. Be a man and don’t back away from that now.

Again, if this is what you are looking for, then I’m simply not interested. I’ve watched how you’ve argued with Jack and George and Eric, calling each of them liars and asking for apologies. Its tiresome and juvenile. If you choose to bring your style up to an adult level, I’m nore than happy to converse with you. I’ve seen you do it, and do it well. But I haven’t seen it lately.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at December 21, 2005 8:15 AM
Comment #105550

Louis,

“Finally.”

I’ve answered your question many times. Why can’t you be honest about this?

I see. If by ‘answer’ you mean the quantity of your response— sure, you responded. But you didn’t answer the question. The answer you gave was to a question I didn’t ask, which was, “Was Afghanistan a threat?” In fact, what I asked you, over and over again was, “Was Afghanistan an imminent threat before 9/11, which would have justified an invasion?” This is the question you have finally answered. As anyone reading the comments can plainly see.

Perhaps you are unable to see the difference between these two statements? From this I can only conclude that most of your other assertions are based on the same misunderstanding. That is, if it is only your understanding that is faulty here.

“2nd Question: was this imminent threat sufficient to have justified an invasion before 9/11?”

I have answered that question too.

Ah… so you do realize that these are two very different questions! Very good. That is comforting. I no longer have to fear for your intelligence; it is only your integrity that is suspect.

Do you have a point here or do you plan to continue ask the same questions over and over and over and over then continue lie about whether I’ve anserwed them?

It’s extremely obvious that Afghanistan was an immediate threat to us that warrented an attack. I’ve said that all along.

Do you have a point here or can I expect you to keep dancing and lying?

See, here again you have missed the point of the question entirely. I did not say attack. I said invasion.

2nd Question: was this imminent threat sufficient to have justified an invasion before 9/11?

I’m beginning to think that you don’t want to have a conversation. Especially when you continue to call me a liar for trying to debate with you. Or maybe I’m just not getting your real point. Perhaps what you are trying to tell me is that you would rather not engage in any real debate as evidenced by your continuous use of the accusation of lying? Maybe you are impolitely trying to tell me that it’s too much for you?

Maybe you deserve just one more chance to answer the question. Care to?

Posted by: esimonson at December 21, 2005 1:55 PM
Comment #105757

Hi jeobagodonuts,

“And if you don’t consider Teddy Kennedy far left, then I simply don’t know what kind of logic you could possibly be using to arrive at that conclusion.”

This is quite simple. You attacked my logic without providing any of your own.

Please support the statement jeobagodonuts.

You made an assertion. You insulted my logic. You don’t seem to be able to support your assertion or your attack on my logic.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 21, 2005 8:39 PM
Comment #105758

Hi Eric,

“But you didn’t answer the question.”

I answered the question Eric. (December 20, 2005 06:49 PM)

“Especially when you continue to call me a liar for trying to debate with you.”

I’ve done no such thing. I’ve pointed out a few of your lies. I’d like to debate you but you keep lying about whether I’ve answered your question over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

If you decide to stop lying about me and want to discuss issues you’ll let me know?



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 21, 2005 8:43 PM
Comment #105767

Hi Eric,

Occupying Iraq was an incredibly stupid idea. Our Iraq policy is based on the assumption that elections are a panacea for terrorism which isn’t at all likely to be true.

Because of the incredibly stupidity of the Bush White House our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in Iraq.

We’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and the insurgents aren’t losing.

The terrorists are winning in Iraq… the early election results show that the terrorists have a clear lead.

We’ve got massive military resources tied up in Iraq and the terrorists are winning.

We’ve got massive military resources fighting in Iraq and the terrorists are winning. This is the result of incredible stupidity on the part of the White House.

Would you care to address these points or do you plan to ask me the same question about Afghanistan over and over and over and over?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 21, 2005 9:27 PM
Comment #105783

Eric,
The UCLA “study” has been thoroughly debunked. I’ve read big sections of it, and not just the press releases. Among other failures, it “proved” that the ACLU was in fact a RIGHT wing organization.

And Eric, I am *still* waiting for you to back up your goofy assertion about P Diddy’s get out the vote campaign. Either prove it or admit that you lied, Eric.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 21, 2005 10:31 PM
Comment #105865

Louis:

I’ve decided that I’m not interested, for the reasons I spoke of before. I’d hoped you’d take the opportunity to review your position and your manners, but I seem to have hoped in vain.

Have a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and a fruitful 2006.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 8:41 AM
Comment #105868

Hi joebagodonuts,

“you have lost on every single occasion thus far.”

This accusation was leveled at me on this thread by Jay.

I asked him to support it or admit that he’s lying which I think is quite reasonable.

I don’t think it’s bad manners to ask someone to support an accusation like that.

You’ve asserted that Kennedy is far left. It’s an accusation that’s frequently made by right wing spinmasters in an attempt to discount everything Kennedy says.

Calling everyone you disagree with “far left” is a very sleazy substitute for discussion of ideas.

Ideas should be judged on the “stupid coefficient”. Ideas are: Stupid, a bit stupid, or not stupid. Saying to someone “you’re a leftist so your all ideas are bad” is using sleaze in place of discussion of ideas.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 22, 2005 8:51 AM
Comment #105869

Hi joebagodonuts,

PS: I meant to include a sincere “Merry Christmas! and Happy New Year! to you too!”

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 22, 2005 8:53 AM
Comment #105991

Louis:

I assume you are criticizing a number of people but not me. I don’t do any of the things that you cited in your post as being bad. Never have. Never called those who disagree with me “far left”, though I do tend to disagree with “far left” opinions. Never discount what Teddy Kennedy says just because he’s Teddy Kennedy ( I discount things he says because I disagree with him).

We could fight all day long about how “left” Kennedy is. The Americans for Democratic Action ranked Kennedy 100 on a scale of 100 for liberalism in 2004, 95 out of 100 in 2003, 100 of 100 in 2001 etc. That’s one ranking of how liberal Kennedy is. We both agree that Kennedy is liberal—the only question is how liberal. Frankly, its a moot point that warrants no further discussion.

You use the word “lie” an awful lot. I have a thing about that word, because by definition it calls for intent. Today, people consider mistakes to be lies. My daughter told me I lied because I told her I’d pick her up at 4:15 and was late. In order to have lied, I’d have had to intentionally planned to not be there at 4:15, when in truth, a faulty car battery prevented me from being there on time. The truth is that I was late, but there was no lie involved.

The word is used far to often, and you use it liberally. I think you sometimes use it in an incorrect manner. You should think about it.

Lastly, thanks for the sentiments. Mine were meant earnestly, and I know yours were also.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 12:13 PM
Comment #106016

Hi joebagodonuts’

“I don’t do any of the things that you cited in your post as being bad.”

O. K.

“We both agree that Kennedy is liberal”

Yes although it’s an extremely overused term.

“Far left” indicates exrtreme views which doesn’t describe Kennedy. I disagree with some of his positions but “extreme” doesn’t describe his politics.

In the example I gave it had been stated that I had lost every discussion I’ve had on here. That is a lie by any reasonable definition and I called the fellow on it.

If I said to you “you’ve lost every discussion you’ve ever had” that wouldn’t be a talking point…..it would be a lie.

That sort of thing is a desperate tactic that people who are losing on the basis of merit use.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 22, 2005 12:31 PM
Comment #106154

ElliotBay,

And Eric, I am *still* waiting for you to back up your goofy assertion about P Diddy’s get out the vote campaign. Either prove it or admit that you lied, Eric.

What did I lie about? Don’t come back with comments on comments from weeks ago and not even mention specifically what it is I am supposed to have lied about.

Besides which, it was P. Diddy’s “Vote or Die” campaign. What did I lie about the “Vote or Die” Campaign?

If you’re going to call me a liar you better back it up. I’m tired of you guys thinking that calling someone a liar is going to get you off the hook for losing an argument. Let’s throw in Hitler in here too while we’re at it.

Posted by: esimonson at December 22, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #106161

Louis:

It may be a desperate tactic, but I am unsure why you are bringing it up to me. Were I you, I’d bring it up to whomever said it to me, rather than telling an uninvolved person about it.

By the way, it was probably just intended to get under your skin, which it appears to have done. I still maintain the word “lie” is well overused.

You’ve used the term “right wing propaganda” to describe speech. I’d think you wouldn’t then complain about people using the phrase far left. I showed that at least one measure, Kennedy is as far to the left as their scale allows. That doesn’t make him an extremist, but it does put him well to the left.

Posted by: joebagdonuts at December 22, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #106219

Hi joebagdonuts,

“why you are bringing it up to me”

Why are YOU bringing up to ME?

“You’ve used the term “right wing propaganda” to describe speech.”

I use it to describe right wing propaganda such as saying that teaching evolution is “removing God from the schools”.

“I’d think you wouldn’t then complain about people using the phrase far left.”

I didn’t complain about anyone using the phrase.

I stated that it was missaplied to Murtha and others.

There are many examples of perfectly good phrases that can be grossly missused.

“That doesn’t make him an extremist, but it does put him well to the left.”

He’s not well off to the left though.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 22, 2005 4:16 PM
Comment #106288

Eric,
I guess you’re too lazy to look up your own statements. As I suspected - you apparently aren’t one to let the facts get in the way.

You said this about P Diddy’s “Vote or Die” get out the vote campaign

While P. Diddy was actually intimating that Republicans might be doing the killing.
Back that up with real facts or admit that you were wrong, Eric.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 22, 2005 8:27 PM
Comment #106529

Louis:

You’ve returned to the juvenile arguments again. I don’t know why.

You brought up the issue between you and Jay:

In the example I gave it had been stated that I had lost every discussion I’ve had on here. That is a lie by any reasonable definition and I called the fellow on it…This accusation was leveled at me on this thread by Jay.

When I asked why you were bringing it up to me, you say I brought it up. I brought up the issue of lying, which you have had with Jay, Eric, Jack and George. The fact that you have had the same issue (calling or being called a liar)with 4 separate people is interesting in that there is one common factor in those situations. Care to guess what it is?

You seem to want to argue the Teddy Kennedy thing, which is meaningless. But since you do, show me your proof. You seem to want to make it an issue. I showed you one group’s assessment that Teddy ranks 100 out of 100 on a scale of liberalism. Can’t get any more liberal than that, according to their methods. Go ahead and post YOUR evidence that he’s not. It won’t make a difference to this or any other discussion, but you seem to find it important. I’ll read what you seem to want to post.

I think Murtha is probably a good man—dont really know cuz I’d never heard of him before this instance. But his idea is dead wrong, in my opinion. That makes him neither a jerk nor a terrorist sympathizer, but it does make him someone whose judgement on this war is in question. I base that on nothing other than the policy he supports. I don’t care if he is far left, left, moderate, right or far right—-he is wrong in his ideas of how to properly conclude this war.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 7:51 AM
Comment #106722

Hi joebagodonuts,

“I brought up the issue of lying”

That you did. You don’t seem to want to allow me to respond to it though. Why can’t I respond to an issue you raised without you calling me childish and whatnot?

“The fact that you have had the same issue (calling or being called a liar)with 4 separate people is interesting in that there is one common factor in those situations. Care to guess what it is?”

When those people lied I pointed it out. The common factor is that people were lying. It’s hard to respond to a lie in any other way as lying isn’t discourse.

“You seem to want to argue the Teddy Kennedy thing”

I merely want to point out the truth of the matter.

“Go ahead and post YOUR evidence that he’s not.”

He’s not taken extreme left positions. His positions are, in general, quite moderate. I think he’s wrong sometimes but he’s a generally reasonable fellow. Those on the far left or far right tend not to be at all reasonable.

“he is wrong in his ideas of how to properly conclude this war.”

He might be. Given that the terrorists are winning (the elections I mean) it’s hard to know whether we should continue to support terrorists in the Iraqi government.

Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists and it’s not unreasonable for people to want to put a stop to that.

I don’t see how we can pull out of Iraq anytime soon. I think we’re stuck there for a long time. I knew that once we went in we’d never get out.




Posted by: LouisXIV at December 23, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #106928

Louis:

That was very good—very good indeed. At first I thought you were serious, but then I realized that it was just your sardonic wit. I knew you must be using humor, because there is no other alternative conclusion to me.

I’ll show the humor for those who might not been able to pick it out:

In an earlier post, you asked me for proof that Teddy Kennedy is ‘far left’, and I provided statistics from the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) showing him ranking 100 out of 100, with 100 being the most liberal according to their scale. Then I asked you for your proof that Teddy Kennedy is not ‘far left’, and you responded with the following:

“He’s not taken extreme left positions. His positions are, in general, quite moderate. I think he’s wrong sometimes but he’s a generally reasonable fellow. Those on the far left or far right tend not to be at all reasonable.

Sheer genius!! I especially liked your comment that Teddy is a “generally reasonable fellow” as proof of his political alignment. What a great line. And of course there are actually people out there really think this kind of statement qualifies as proof. That’s what made it so funny.

Bravo on your irony…I truly almost fell out of my chair laughing as I read this.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 8:34 PM
Comment #107064

Hi joebagodonuts,

You don’t have a clue about what “far left” means.

Why are you discussing things that you obviously don’t understand?

Kennedy hasn’t taken far leftist postitions. You aren’t able to comprehend the obvious here.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 24, 2005 8:58 AM
Post a comment