Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#239443 - 29/10/2004 16:14 the Rove shocker....
lastdan
enthusiast

Registered: 31/05/2002
Posts: 352
Loc: santa cruz,ca
a few weeks ago I read that Karl Rove said he had a 'big surprise' in store for us all that would come in October. .
did I miss something? or am I still on the edge of my seat in anticipation, or was that the point.

it's not hard to imagine that this could have something to do with OBL, but I wonder if anyone would vote bush as a result of his capture.

so it's two questions.
1. what's the surprise ? ( I bet it was the red sox thing)
2. wound anyone switch from Kerry to Bush if OBL was found?

Top
#239444 - 29/10/2004 16:48 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: lastdan]
genixia
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
I think that you'd have to ask some very searching questions about the timing if OBL were caught now. It's been ~162 weeks since 9/11, and I'd have a difficult time believing that he'd turn up one week before the election. Especially since that leaked memo a month before the Democratic convention suggesting to the Pakistanis that the week of the Democatic convention would be a good time to announce the capture of a big terrorist. Even more so since that actually then happened.

Don't misunderstand me - I want OBL caught. I'd just be extremely concerned about the state of US democracy (*) if he were to miraculously turn up now. I suspect that all the flag-waving high-fiving patriotic fervour that would result from such an event would be enough to convince enough undecided- or weak Kerry- voters to vote for Bush.

(*) Yeah, like I'm not concerned at the moment, what with all the election fiascos, the defacto two party system, 65% of the Senate 'race' already decided, etc.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.

Top
#239445 - 29/10/2004 16:55 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: lastdan]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
It's hard to believe that they don't have something up their sleeve. Karl Rove is an absolute genius when it comes to campaigning. Dubya is Karl's Frankenstein, and to think that the Bush campaign is going to sit idly by while the race is this close seems very out of character. The spread is way too thin for their liking, especially with Democrat new registrations far outpacing Republican new registrations, and especially given the fact that undecideds always break away from the incumbent.

So with that, Rove has to be looking at the polls right now and realizes that, while Bush has a mathematical lead in the polls, the real situation is very grim for a sitting President who's misfired a lot recently. Just yesterday, the Pentagon worked feverishly to release photos showing that the Al'QaQaa explosives depot was vacated long before the war, and within minutes, there's video on TV showing Americans walking right into the exact same depot, breaking an IAEA seal, and sifting through the explosives that the Pentagon is saying weren't there in April. With all this happening, the Republicans have to have *something* ready to drop to sway things in their favor.

That being said, I don't think that "something" would be an Osama bin Laden capture. That's too transparent. Rove and his cohorts are much more shrewd and cunning than that. I don't know what it is, but I'd imagine we'll have some salvos fired this weekend.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#239446 - 29/10/2004 17:08 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: lastdan]
siberia37
old hand

Registered: 09/01/2002
Posts: 702
Loc: Tacoma,WA
Thinking wildly- maybe Cheney will have "heart problems" and someone will be forced to step in as vice-president. And why who else then John McCain? Nothing would help the Bush campaign more than a new Vice-President who is well respected by Democrats and Republicans alike. Anyone else notice how much a big role J.M. took in the GOP convention- stange for someone who is about the biggest critic of the president on the right side of the aisle.

Top
#239447 - 29/10/2004 18:05 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: siberia37]
genixia
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
Yeah, McCain stepping in would be the nightmare scenario for the Democrats. It'd also be a real shame - the prospect of Kerry vs McCain in 4 years time is tantalising and I doubt Kerry would run again unless elected.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.

Top
#239448 - 29/10/2004 19:06 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: lastdan]
DLF
addict

Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
_________________________
-- DLF

Top
#239449 - 29/10/2004 19:28 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: DLF]
Dylan
addict

Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
That's what my friend said when he IM'ed me the story but I don't see how that benefits either candidate.

Top
#239450 - 29/10/2004 19:40 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: lastdan]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
It was Monday's story about how Kerry never met with the UN Security Counsel when he said he had (which I doubt anyone cares about). Personally, I think it was pretty weak. As a neo-con, I can tell you that Bush's strategy is to keep national security (either Iraq or the War on Terror as a whole) the main issue. As the polls have shown, it doesn't matter if it's good news or bad news regarding Iraq. People still trust Bush more than Kerry when it comes to Iraq and terrorism. Let's not debate who you think would do a better job. The point is the polls show that this is Bush's strong point. So, when the planted ammo cache story broke, the Republicans decided it was better to drop the UN thing and keep the cache story front and center even though it was actually the Democrat's "October Surprise". Kerry's only chance is to keep domestic issues as the main focus and I think his camp miscalculated by running with the ammo cache story. There is even speculation that Kerry knew this story was coming during the debate when he said something like "and weapons from that dump are being used against our soldiers."

A funny theory is that since Clinton's people are running the Kerry campaign now, they actually did this on purpose because a Kerry victory means that Hillary can't run until 2012. This is what a lot of Republicans think is possible, I wonder what you liberals/progressives/Democrats/etc think about that... I think it's far fetched, but "fun" to think about.

I highly doubt that the UBL tape was planned by the Bush people. That would imply that the Republicans and Al-Jazeera are working together and that's impossible. They've already endorsed Kerry.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#239451 - 29/10/2004 20:01 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
Dylan
addict

Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
Most of your post is too far out there for me to comment on but it is true that the polls show terrorism as the topic on which Americans significantly favor Bush. So having Osama in front of people probably does benefit Bush. For me, seeing a healthy Osama reminds me that Bush didn't catch the f*cker.

Top
#239452 - 30/10/2004 03:38 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: DLF]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
On the Larry King show, Walter Cronkite, the godfather of biased media, says that Carl Rove, set up this whole Usama bin Laden lecture and broadcast.

Please.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#239453 - 30/10/2004 03:54 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
Walter Cronkite, the godfather of biased media,


Brad, enlighten us. Provide specific examples of Walter Cronkite's biases and why/how you think they support your "godfather" assertion.

Edit: Oh, oh, I am slowly realizing that maybe you are saying that Walter is a *liberal* and that what he has ro say does not agree with your views. So, let me revise my request. Please provide examples of cases where you believe what "Godfather" Cronkite had to say was incorrect or innaccurate,


Edited by jimhogan (30/10/2004 04:20)

Top
#239454 - 30/10/2004 05:00 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: jimhogan]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Cronkite has himself admitted his bias... if you want I can Google one of his many quotes.

Oh wait, here is one of them: "Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."

Off the top of my head, Cronkite has opposed the Iraq war because it was a military action by the US without UN approval, but never once criticized Clinton's actions in Yugoslavia (without UN approval or even Congressional approval). Yugoslavia posed no thread to the USA. He also raised no concerns over France conducting action in the Ivory Coast without UN approval. Link.

Quote:
Edit: Oh, oh, I am slowly realizing that maybe you are saying that Walter is a *liberal* and that what he has to say does not agree with your views.


Your missing the point of journalism. The journalists views are not supposed to enter into the coverage or the story itself. If Tim Russert is a Democrat, that's fine, who cares. His or any journalists views should not be a factor. But, if by watching a particular journalists show reveals that person's personal views, than that person is not being a good journalist because they are letting their bias enter into it. You tend to agree with the bias so you just think it's "true".

He is the Godfather because he handed the duties over to Dan Rather.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#239455 - 30/10/2004 05:42 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
Don't remember Cronkite well enough to make claims about him (and I thought you were younger than me) but Rather's biases have never been particularly flagrant (though I haven't watched him much in years either).

I was unimpressed by the RatherBiased guy, but then, I only read it because I was looking for him doing What's the frequency, Kenneth on Letterman.

Top
#239456 - 30/10/2004 11:55 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: Daria]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Quote:
I was unimpressed by the RatherBiased guy


I don't follow that stuff too much either. For someone to be that obsessed with Dan Rather, I wonder if he has some secret crush or something. He should do what the rest of us stopped doing and just tune out.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#239457 - 30/10/2004 20:00 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
Cronkite has himself admitted his bias... if you want I can Google one of his many quotes.

Oh wait, here is one of them: "Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."

Well, maybe I just take this as a given. Correspondents tend to be college-educated. Colleges are known to be havens for liberal thinking, so correspondents must then be disproportionately liberal. I will email the networks and demand that they hire more high school dropouts. There are, of course exceptions, like one of Cronkite's college-based nemeses who includes that quote).

Quote:
Off the top of my head, Cronkite has opposed the Iraq war because it was a military action by the US without UN approval,

Seems like one of many good reasons.

Quote:
but never once criticized Clinton's actions in Yugoslavia (without UN approval or even Congressional approval). Yugoslavia posed no thread to the USA.

I would say this criticism is *partly* fair. My memory, though, is that there was more of a sense amond the world at large after Bosnian genocide that it was necessary to do *something*, and that Clinton would have been criticized no matter what path was pursued. Who would have criticized Bush for *not* invading Iraq?

Quote:
He also raised no concerns over France conducting action in the Ivory Coast without UN approval.

This is probably a great ball for Limbaugh to bat around on his radio show, but not comparable. A former French colony with post-colonial political and miltary ties, Ivory Coast's relation to France is more in line with Liberia's historical ties to US. Did the French rush in to secure the lucrative cocoa wells and impose a free-market utopia? Did citizens around the world march in the streets against that intervention? In a lot of cases like this I think there are no perfect courses of action (Darfur? Rwanda?), but did the French intervention turn out to be incredibly stoopid? (Like another intervention that comes to mind?)

Quote:
Your missing the point of journalism. The journalists views are not supposed to enter into the coverage or the story itself. If Tim Russert is a Democrat, that's fine, who cares. His or any journalists views should not be a factor. But, if by watching a particular journalists show reveals that person's personal views, than that person is not being a good journalist because they are letting their bias enter into it. You tend to agree with the bias so you just think it's "true".

I think I have a fairly good handle on the "point" of journalism and that my standards are pretty high -- and my opinions of US mass-media "journalism" is at an all-time low. You'd scarcely believe it, but when I was a kid, network TV news organization would frequently run 1 and 2-hour-long news programs during evening prime-time -- preempting the sacred "Friends" and "ERs" of the day. Whole programs, well researched, about, shucks, the civil-rights movement, the life of people living in poverty, the war in Indochina.

Presently, we have a sitting President who *may* have been wirelessly prompted through a Presidential debate, but the only journalists with the temerity to ask what that bulge was live within the confines of a comic strip. That's not good. Of course, to ask any such questions, the Prez would have to expose himself to them, something that just isn't in his playbook.

Jane Pauley is married to a known liberal cartoonist. What biases to you detect in her TV persona? Tim Russert *is* one of those college-educated liberals, I think. What does he do that is unfair?

My home was a Huntley-Brinkley shop during that day, but on occasion watched Cronkite during his heyday. If he was overly affected by that commie internationalism world view, it did not come across in his seemingly professional delivery. He pissed a bunch of people off by opining that the Vietnam War was not winnable, and I have to believe those words had effect in many different ways. To my amazement, there are still people who think it *was* winnable, and blame Cronkite, Fonda and others for our defeat. You?

Oh, and Edward R. Murrow was, I'm pretty certain, a liberal, thank goodness.

A gratuitous liberal link. I was excited to find today that somebody put McGovern's essay up on the Web (hope it is legal!). Strangely, liberals retreat from the label. McGovern spells out what liberalism has accomplished. What has conservatism gotten us?

Quote:
He is the Godfather because he handed the duties over to Dan Rather.

Godfathers in the sense I think you mean, usually stick around in the background and whisper like Marlon Brando to their godsons. Did Cronkite keep an office at CBS?

As far as network news has sunk (I saw an NBC "in-depth" report a few months ago and timed it at 2 minutes and 11 seconds!), it is interesting to remember that Rather had better days. MACV generals and field commanders hated him, but many did, as I think Harry Summers pointed out, respect him. Does anybody in the current Iraq command structure respect Dill O'Reilly? Oh, he's not a journalist. Or is he?

Back to some of your points in that earlier post:

Quote:
....I can tell you that Bush's strategy is to keep national security (either Iraq or the War on Terror as a whole) the main issue.

I think that is clearly the case. It leaves the pro-War-ish Kerry in a much weaker spot "We'll do a much smarter job of killing people!"

Quote:
As the polls have shown, it doesn't matter if it's good news or bad news regarding Iraq. People still trust Bush more than Kerry when it comes to Iraq and terrorism. Let's not debate who you think would do a better job. The point is the polls show that this is Bush's strong point.

NPR comsymp Daniel Schorr had an interesting off-the-cuff spin this AM -- that any mention of "Iraq" helps Kerry while any mention of "terrorism" helps Bush. I don't know.

Quote:
So, when the planted ammo cache story broke, the Republicans decided it was better to drop the UN thing and keep the cache story front and center even though it was actually the Democrat's "October Surprise". Kerry's only chance is to keep domestic issues as the main focus and I think his camp miscalculated by running with the ammo cache story. There is even speculation that Kerry knew this story was coming during the debate when he said something like "and weapons from that dump are being used against our soldiers."

Knowledge of unsecured or porrly secured dumps from which insurgents could lift large quantities of explosives, ammo, RPGs were in the news early on in the "post-war" war, weren't they? I am not sure why this one is getting so much attention other than the IAEA seals.

Quote:
A funny theory is that since Clinton's people are running the Kerry campaign now, they actually did this on purpose because a Kerry victory means that Hillary can't run until 2012. This is what a lot of Republicans think is possible, I wonder what you liberals/progressives/Democrats/etc think about that... I think it's far fetched, but "fun" to think about.

I think far-fetched as well. I think Clinton operatives are involved now because the existing campaign was in trouble. If Kerry loses I don't think any stage is necessarily set for Hillary. A Kerry defeat will signify the failure of the Democratic Party DLC-style center that disparaged Howard Dean. In some respects I rationalize some of that as the very small upside if Bush wins or prevails. A small voice in my head says "Do I want to spend the next four years listening to Republicans yell 'That Flipflopper!'" and a very tiny part of me wants to say "George, you want it? You can have it." If and when a small nuke lights up some US city, there wouldn't be any Kerry appointees around to blame, would there?

Quote:
I highly doubt that the UBL tape was planned by the Bush people. That would imply that the Republicans and Al-Jazeera are working together and that's impossible. They've already endorsed Kerry

I used to think that OBL favored a Bush presidency from the standpoint of what gifts Bush has already given to him. Also, I guess there could still be people in the Islamist terror camp who want to see Bush so that the cataclysmic confrontation can continue. The more I read, though, I don't think Bin Laden cares who wins. He says as much, and I am learning to take him at his word.

October surprise? Maybe there isn't one. At this point I think either party would consider using nursing home residents to chum the Gulf of Mexico for sharks if they thought it would help get them to 51 percent. Rove, while perhaps the most willing, is smart enough to know what works, though. His masterful reputation is well-deserved, but he isn't God. So maybe there isn't a surprise....or maybe he tried to plant some fake Kerry memos and it didn't work.... or maybe we'll only learn what it was in 2038 from a deathbed confession.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#239458 - 30/10/2004 22:25 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: jimhogan]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
Rove, while perhaps the most willing, is smart enough to know what works, though. His masterful reputation is well-deserved, but he isn't God. So maybe there isn't a surprise....or maybe he tried to plant some fake Kerry memos and it didn't work.... or maybe we'll only learn what it was in 2038 from a deathbed confession.


The choice of 2038 is an interesting one; His time_t is 32 bits?

Top
#239459 - 30/10/2004 22:45 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
On the Larry King show, Walter Cronkite, the godfather of biased media, says that Carl Rove, set up this whole Usama bin Laden lecture and broadcast.

Please.


Ah, Larry King transcript snip:

CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.

Maybe Walter's losing it. I would say that is quite a limb to walk out on without more evidence/theory. Would Rove do it if he could? In a heartbeat. The timing *is* amazing, but if Bin Laden wanted to get attention, no better time than now. If he wants to say "it doesn't matter who you elect", I guess this would be the time.

I'd go so far, though, as to give Cronkite's speculation a 5 percent chance! I'm just struggling to think of what kind of Rovian PsyOps maneuver could produce it. Sending Bin Laden a "Who's Your Daddy?" postcard?

The one I really want to know about is the "American Al Queda" What's up with that? Now I could easily believe that Rove ginned that up because OBL wasn't making the required appearance -- only to have him appear. And so it seems the American Al Quaeda has disappeared until November 3rd.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#239460 - 30/10/2004 22:48 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: Daria]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
The choice of 2038 is an interesting one; His time_t is 32 bits?

I have been told that Rove is based on System V code.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#239461 - 30/10/2004 23:36 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: jimhogan]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Geez Jim! I wanted to have some free time tonight! Let the bottom posting begin!

Quote:
Correspondents tend to be college-educated. Colleges are known to be havens for liberal thinking, so correspondents must then be disproportionately liberal.


This is bordering on elitist territory by assuming that most college educated peoples are of a liberal mindset so, in turn, most conservatives must be farm raised, bible thumping, simpletons who are too scared by new things to be open minded to a better, progressive utopia. But I'll assume this wasn't your point... While colleges are indeed havens for hacky sacks, hemp beaded necklaces and protest movements du jour, I think a lot of this begins and ends in that environment. While most people don't graduate to later become Republicans (it's probably split), most do in fact go on to lead pretty conservative lives, even if they don't vote that way.

Journalism professors, on the other hand, do tend to be quite liberal. I know first hand how we had to read only liberal books on the evils of consumerism and the blessings of large government in order to pass a class (and write only praising reviews to get a good grade). I thank God that I was repulsed by the requirement to write at a 5th grade reading level. This moved me out of broadcast journalism.

The real problem IMO is that most journalists are driven by the desire to "change the world" which is not what journalism is about. If anything, that's what editorials are for. But, growing up in the age of Watergate and the McCarthyism, there is a mold for these budding journalists to fit into... Unfortunately, journalists/activists don't get the luxury of graduating to a better life. Instead, they get hired by the likes of Arthur O. Sulzberger.

I seriously doubt you'll be motivated to write and complain about a bunch of journalists

Quote:
Quote: Off the top of my head, Cronkite has opposed the Iraq war because it was a military action by the US without UN approval,

Seems like one of many good reasons.


UN approval is nice (although it wasn't enough for Kerry in the Persian Gulf War), but shouldn't be a requirement for the United States or any country to protect itself. Especially when there was no way in hell that France, Russia, Germany or China were going to ever support such action (and France promised to veto it). What were we to do? Out bid Saddam's bribes?

If not having UN approval is "one of many reasons" to oppose something, I don't how this can be considered anything but a global test.

But again, we are debating issues that we'll never agree on. The real point was that a journalist's viewpoint should not enter into his job. Whether it be politics, sports or the purple section of USA Today, a journalists job is to tell the public what has happened.

Quote:
My memory, though, is that there was more of a sense amond the world at large after Bosnian genocide that it was necessary to do *something*, and that Clinton would have been criticized no matter what path was pursued.


The world at large can have whatever sense they want. The point is that Russia vowed to veto any UN action in Bosnia so the US acted unilaterally. Clinton was smart enough to know that the UN was and is useless except when it comes to issuing pointless resolutions. (Just look at how many humanitarian disasters have happened as the UN sat idly by.) Some ground troops would have been nice, and it would have been nice to let our pilots fly lower to avoid civilian deaths, but Clinton did the right thing.

Quote:
Who would have criticized Bush for *not* invading Iraq?


Once Saddam succeeded in lifting sanctions and reconstituting his weapons programs, the same people that point the finger at Bush for letting 9/11 happen, except that this time, they would have a valid argument. As Churchill said, World War II could have been avoided, and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved if the world confronted the fascist regimes in Europe before country after country began to fall under their control. But, it was the USA's isolationist movement, Britain's appeasement and France's head in the sand that let World War II happen. Little did we know that France having its head in the sand was better than where their head is now.

Quote:
Presently, we have a sitting President who *may* have been wirelessly prompted through a Presidential debate, but the only journalists with the temerity to ask what that bulge was live within the confines of a comic strip. That's not good.


This is tin-foil hat stuff. Was he wearing earmuffs or something to cover his ears so that we couldn't see an IFB sitting in there? The reason that nobody is bringing it up, is because only the "Bush attacked Afghanistan for an oil line!" people are buying into this. This is the equivalent of the "vast Right wing conspiracy" people that think Clinton was behind killing scores of people. If journalists covered this, it wouldn't be journalism, it'd be one of those shows where they talk about the Loch Ness Monster on The Learning Channel.

Quote:
Tim Russert *is* one of those college-educated liberals, I think. What does he do that is unfair?


I said in my post that Russert was a liberal and I didn't care. He does his job. He respects the people he interviews and respects his position as the host of one of the longest running political shows in the US. I have deep respect for him. It's impossible to expect any reporter to have "no views" at all. The problem only shows up when those views are reflected in the reporting. He does slip up from time to time on the Today show, but that's my fault for tuning in!

Quote:
To my amazement, there are still people who think it *was* winnable, and blame Cronkite, Fonda and others for our defeat. You?


Who can ever know? I was born in 1975, so I was too preoccupied with um.. I don't remember. I do know that the Vietnamese say that the Anti-War movement in the US is what gave them faith to keep fighting. At that point, they knew they didn't have to win strategically. All they had to do was cause enough US casualties to sway public opinion. The Vietnamese even have John Kerry and Jane Fonda in their museum . I sure as hell think that we could have won, had the war been fought differently from Day One, but that's all hindsight. Communism didn't spread throughout South East Asia after that, but anyone who claims to know whether that was or was not because Vietnam stopped that tide is talking out of their ass.

Quote:
Oh, and Edward R. Murrow was, I'm pretty certain, a liberal, thank goodness.


But that's not what made him a great reporter.

Quote:
McGovern spells out what liberalism has accomplished. What has conservatism gotten us?


That's a different era my friend. John Kennedy was a democrat but supported preemptive action and lower taxes. I think he'd crap if he saw that Howard Dean represents his party more than he does today. Conservatism, by nature, is all that we hold sacred in this great nation of ours. That's why we want to conserve it. Winning the Cold War and allowing millions of people to live in freedom comes to mind.

Quote:
Did Cronkite keep an office at CBS?


I think he did, I don't really care enough to look it up. I remember there being some minor power struggle at some point where Rather didn't want Cronkite to report on some story, but it seemed to silly for me to bother reading.

Quote:
Does anybody in the current Iraq command structure respect Dill O'Reilly? Oh, he's not a journalist. Or is he?


I think they do in spades. Because he supports and respects them. He honors their service and doesn't view them as war criminals in waiting. His ratings are doing pretty well too. But no, he is not a journalist. He is a political commentator who editorializes current events. I know that he leans Right of center, but he tells you that. In contrast, the Katies, Dans and Peters of the world pretend to be objective.

Back to older stuff...

Quote:
NPR comsymp Daniel Schorr had an interesting off-the-cuff spin this AM -- that any mention of "Iraq" helps Kerry while any mention of "terrorism" helps Bush. I don't know.


I would agree with him at first glance, but then that would have put Bush's numbers at 5% by now if it were true (considering how often Iraq is in the news). Kerry's position on Iraq changes so often, he's better off not having to talk about it.

Quote:
Knowledge of unsecured or porrly secured dumps from which insurgents could lift large quantities of explosives, ammo, RPGs were in the news early on in the "post-war" war, weren't they?


You misspelled poorly and around (way earlier) btw. I've been waiting like.. two years to do that.

Quote:
I am not sure why this one is getting so much attention other than the IAEA seals.


Because someone from the UN leaked that memo, about an 18 month old story, due to the election being a week away. That, and Kerry has mentioned it in every speech.

Quote:
A small voice in my head says "Do I want to spend the next four years listening to Republicans yell 'That Flipflopper!'" and a very tiny part of me wants to say "George, you want it? You can have it."


I'm glad that you are coming to terms with Bush's inevitable victory already. But the thing to remember is that if Bush wins, as Americans, each and everyone of us is a winner.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#239462 - 30/10/2004 23:39 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: jimhogan]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Quote:
The one I really want to know about is the "American Al Queda" What's up with that?


That one is freaky because the dude goes on for like an hour and fifteen minutes! To be honest, I was buying into the "UBL is dead" theory because he was letting that guy in Iraq take all the fame for a year. It also made sense that if he was dead, we wouldn't tell anyone (why make a martyr out of him?) Maybe he needed to buy a new video camera. At least we know his DVD player is working.. he seems to have a copy of Moore's 9/11.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#239463 - 31/10/2004 00:02 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
Maybe he needed to buy a new video camera.


Brad, you've nailed it! Do you think Rove put on some sunglasses and paid cash at Best Buy...or maybe he bought it on line and there's a credit card record?

I will researc h that, but, first, I have to go to dinner.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#239464 - 31/10/2004 00:17 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
UN approval is nice (although it wasn't enough for Kerry in the Persian Gulf War), but shouldn't be a requirement for the United States or any country to protect itself. Especially when there was no way in hell that France, Russia, Germany or China were going to ever support such action (and France promised to veto it). What were we to do? Out bid Saddam's bribes?


Not attack? What present danger did Saddam pose? He was going to launch those non-existant weapons at us? And in the meantime, North Korea became a nuclear power, while we were busy with Saddam. Nobody's pushing that issue, and I'm not sure why. Would President Gore have done better? I don't know. I only know what *did happen*, and what did happen isn't really anything that made the world safer.



Quote:

Once Saddam succeeded in lifting sanctions and reconstituting his weapons programs,


Edit: bah, where'd this line go? Anyway, you basically point out why I claim "not a present danger" just above.
Quote:

bringing it up, is because only the "Bush attacked Afghanistan for an oil line!" people are buying into this.



I was prepared to argue, but I think you're right. Afghanistan wasn't about an oil line, and if Bush was wearing a wire, it obviously either had a dolt on the other end, or it wasn't working. I still like the bulletproof vest theory, and it wouldn't bother me to hear that was the answer.

Quote:

Who can ever know? I was born in 1975, so I was too preoccupied with um.. I don't remember. I do know that the Vietnamese say that the Anti-War movement in the US is what gave them faith to keep fighting. At that point, they knew they didn't have to win strategically. All they had to do was cause enough US casualties to sway public opinion. The Vietnamese even have John Kerry and Jane Fonda in their museum . I sure as hell think that we could have won, had the war been fought differently from Day One, but that's all hindsight.


Sure, getting behind a coup of the South Vietnamese leader and letting him be replaced with less benevolent folks who were our "allies" in keeping Vietnam "free" was a mistake, and if you consider it, it's a mistake we seem to have not learned from at the time. (Allende was later; Chile stayed "free" but that's sort of a mockery of the term when you consider just what Pinochet really was... and here's the fascism you think Churchill was commenting on not being put out in Europe, which in South America we helped *install*. Consider this: would the antiwar movement have been as strong as it was if not for the early mistakes? People point at them as weakening us in the war, and ignore the stuff that came first. So uh, maybe you (not you you, the general you) might want to get that large object out of your eye before you go after that speck in the protestors' eyes? Likewise, the people bitter about the My Lai coverage (and the Abu Gharaib prison scandal). It's like a kid who's bitter over being punished and can't grasp that it's a consequence of an earlier action.

Quote:
That's a different era my friend. John Kennedy was a democrat but supported preemptive action and lower taxes.


Many Democrats support lower taxes... for the people who could really use lower taxes. Do I need lower taxes? Not really. Does someone who makes more than me need lower taxes? Maybe. Probably not. Do they want lower taxes? Do I care?

Quote:
Conservatism, by nature, is all that we hold sacred in this great nation of ours.


Yup. That fellow man? Screw him, let him save his own ass.

Quote:
That's why we want to conserve it. Winning the Cold War and allowing millions of people to live in freedom comes to mind.


Ah, but that's helping your fellow man, that's liberalism
Quote:

I think they do in spades. Because he supports and respects them. He honors their service and doesn't view them as war criminals in waiting.


Let me go out on a limb (albeit a rather solid one) and suggest that much like in every other facet of life, war-criminals-in-waiting are a tiny minority of soldiers in Iraq... they just happen to be the ones which will give this nation a black eye to Iraqis and the world. Much the same as extremists in any issue, they represent a fringe, though because of their actions, generally the most visible part of whatever group they have or claim affiliation with. Sometimes that visibility is more damaging to the group than others.

Quote:

I'm glad that you are coming to terms with Bush's inevitable victory already. But the thing to remember is that if Bush wins, as Americans, each and everyone of us is a winner.


What are the odds that winnings for men 18-25 will be a free trip to Iraq? I have not much to worry about. I'm too old for them to want me. If the future of the country were at stake, I'd probably volunteer anyway.


Edited by dbrashear (31/10/2004 00:18)

Top
#239465 - 31/10/2004 00:31 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
At least we know his DVD player is working.. he seems to have a copy of Moore's 9/11.


I still haven't seen it. I liked "Roger & Me". "Bowling for Columbine" less so, but I didn't hate it. Unlike many of the protestors of that film, I also didn't take away a message of guns being a horrible thing.

Moore was on campus the other day. I'm a volunteer with a student organization which does lighting and sound for events on campus, and we did it for this one. I was underwhelmed by Moore. Most of what he said wasn't very sensationalized (a little was) but the real issue was this: it was an event funded by the student activities fee, and it basically came off like a DNC rally. Not really, there was no official presense of the DNC, and the voter registration organizations there were independent, not affiliated with any party. But Moore's talk, perhaps not surprisingly a week before an election, focused on politics, and was very partisan.

Seems to me either the activities people need(ed) to get someone with a more right-leaning point of view (I would have worked that, too; I stood around as a mostly-impassionate observer throughout, with one exception I'll note below) to speak on campus in the last few days, or let the College Democrats pay for this one.

Anyway, at the end he asked people to show hands if they'd volunteer to call, or get out the vote, or anything like that. Many, but not most, went up.

He asked "is this known as an apathetic campus?" Expecting more of a response, I screamed "Yes!", basically by myself. Oops.

Well, when I was a student, we did manage to have the "picnic for apathy." It was cool, but we never got motivated enough to have another one. I'm not kidding.

Top
#239466 - 31/10/2004 02:25 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
genixia
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
Quote:
UN approval is nice (although it wasn't enough for Kerry in the Persian Gulf War), but shouldn't be a requirement for the United States or any country to protect itself.


Against whom and what exactly?

Against Saddam who'd been kept fenced in for a decade? Or are you one of those 62% who have been convinced by the current adminstration that Iraq == Al Qaeda?
I don't recollect Saddam actually posing any threat to the US mainland. He was having a hard enough time threatening US warplanes flying over his own country. Tell us again how many serviceable fighter jets he had? He must have hidden them really well since non have been found (along with the carriers needed to get them to the USA). Or did you mean the WMDs?

Quote:
RICE [10/25/04]: When people ask whether Iraq is a part of the war on terror, well, of course. Not only did Saddam support terrorists, not only was he a weapons of mass destruction threat and all of those things, but he was a tremendous barrier to change in the Middle East.


Even now, Condi is attempting to link Saddam and Al Qaeda whilst campaiging to keep her job, despite the largest, most expensive, bipartisan Federal Commission in US history having found and declared there to be no link.

Quote:
CHENEY [8/26/02]: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.


Simply stated, Cheney having no doubts does not mean that he was right. There were no WMDs. He was not amassing them. This statement was no more than conjecture presented as fact. And wrong.

Quote:
RUMSFELD [9/19/02]: No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.


What exactly is a "terrorist state" beyond a phrase intended to persuade people that Saddam somehow had something to do with the awful atrocities of 9/11? And...exactly what "immediate" threat did he pose?

Quote:
RICE [9/8/02]: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.


What Condi forgot to mention here is that the "differing estimates" provided by the then classified National Intelligence Estimate:
Quote:
"if unchecked, it [Baghdad] probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade (See INR alternative view at the end of these key judgments)"

included an opinion from the State Department's Office of Intelligence:
Quote:
The activities we have detected do not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.


She also omitted to mention that in early 2003, Saddam was anything but "unchecked" anyway. The IAEA and UN weapons inspectors had a pretty strong grip on Saddam's programs.

Quote:
BUSH [10/7/02]: America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Warning Will Robinson, Danger, Danger.

Quote:
POWELL [UN]: The gravity of the moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.

POWELL [UN]: We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.


Remember those water trucks? Oops.

Quote:
CHENEY [8/26/02]: Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.

2007-2009 absolute worst case scenario if all sanctions were lifted and IAEA and UN weapons inpectors stopped monitoring. And that's if you don't believe the State Department's earlier assessment.

Quote:
RUMSFELD [1/29/03]: His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.


Even I have a 'design' for a nuclear weapon. It comes straight out of a novel, The Fourth Protocol by Frederick Forsyth. That doesn't mean that the design would work. And we have been given no evidence that Saddam actually did have a working design. And let's talk about that Yellowcake from Niger. 15 months before Rummy came out with this statement, the CIA had concluded that:

Quote:
"There is no corroboration from other sources that such an agreement [to buy uranium from Africa] was reached or that uranium was transferred.


A year later, in October 2002, the director of the CIA himself, George Tenet, followed up with two memos and a phone call to the national security team at the White House.

Tenet wrote: "the evidence is weak" and "the Africa story is overblown."
At the same time, State Department experts weighed in with their own warning: "The claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious."

And yet this was presented as fact.

Quote:
BUSH [1/28/03]: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

State of the Union. That wonderful forum where the President gets to tell the whole country anything he wants. Including statements based on information previously refuted by his own experts.

Quote:
BUSH [10/7/02]: Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

BUSH [9/12/02]: Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.

BUSH [1/28/03]: Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.


These tubes were never suitable for use in a gas centrifuge, and the experts had once again already refuted the evidence before Dubya used his State of the Union to create fear and uncertainty. The IAEA, the Department of Energy and the State Department's Office of Intelligence had all concluded that the tubes were not suitable for use in a gas centrifuge. The fact that the tubes' dimensions matched exactly the known dimensions of a known conventional rocket should have been a bit of a giveaway. As should the fact that the purchase order was tendered on that really really secret network known as the internet.

Quote:
RICE [9/8/2002]"are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."


So, what exactly do they build rocket tubes out of? And this clown is in charge of National Security?

Quote:
CHENEY [1/30/03]: His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.


What utter bullshit. Cheney utterly dishonored every one of those 3000-odd people who lost their lives on 9/11 with that lie. No link between Saddam and Al Qaeda existed. And just how do you give people that you don't know something that you don't have?

Quote:
BUSH [9/25/02]: The war on terror, you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.


Once again, someone dishonors the dead. But this time it is the President, the Commander in Chief of the World's most powerful military forces lying. The fact is that Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, James Woosley and Paul Wolfowitz all advocated invading Iraq in 1998, and we all know how influential those people have been in this administration.

Brad, I'm having a really hard time understanding how you can trust any of the current administration enough to vote Bush, let alone defend them. Time and time again they have deliberately mislead you. $200 billion allocated so far, and over 1100 US deaths. Another $75 billion to be requested after the election, and who knows how many more deaths?

I can respect fundamental differences in opinions and policy, But this is outright Deceit.

Quotes from transcript of NOW with Bill Moyers - www.pbs.org
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.

Top
#239467 - 31/10/2004 03:39 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
genixia
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
Quote:
Once Saddam succeeded in lifting sanctions and reconstituting his weapons programs,...


And this was going happen...when exactly?

Quote:
... the same people that point the finger at Bush for letting 9/11 happen, except that this time, they would have a valid argument. As Churchill said, World War II could have been avoided, and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved if the world confronted the fascist regimes in Europe before country after country began to fall under their control. But, it was the USA's isolationist movement, Britain's appeasement and France's head in the sand that let World War II happen.


You know what? I bet Churchill is spinning in his grave now, rueing the day that he uttered those words. I am confident that even whilst uttering them that he knew 2 things - first that he was right, and second, that he had also been right to only lead Britain into war after the perceived threat became a real threat.

Britain risked and lost a lot in WWII. There was a chance that appeasement of Hitler would have created a stable and prosperous Europe, which Britain would still have remained (a less important) part of. There was also a chance that Nazism could have simply burned itself out a few years down the line. Hitler could have died, the moderates within hist military could have organised a coup (which they did try incidentally) etc. And Britain could have been left with most of her empire intact.

By entering the war Britain lost much of her empire. Was it worth the price? History would like us to think so. But consider that Stalin admitted to Churchill that communism had been responsible for at least 8 million deaths within Soviet Russia. By allying with Russia, Britain helped communism take root in eastern Europe. We have no way of calculating how many more people died there post-war than would have if Hitler had been left in power. Admittedly we have to weight that cost up against the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler, and the human cost of the Russo-German war that would have taken place anyway, but my point remains - Britain entering the war helped communism take root and caused suffering.

And before anyone gets jingoistic around here, consider this - Churchill implored Roosevelt at least four times to launch the main attack on Hitler's Europe by going through the Balkan states. By doing so the post war distribution of forces within Europe would have left the Soviets with a far smaller slice of the pie. Roosevelt insisted on marching through the French Riveria, which is why the Soviets ended up with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Eastern Germany, Bulgary and Hungary. How many lives could have been saved?

Quote:
Little did we know that France having its head in the sand was better than where their head is now.

I don't know what you meant by that. Are you implying that their anti-war opinions are invalid? Or that their opinions that Kerry woud be a better President than Bush are invalid? Either way, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I trust that by "we" that you meant Bush/war supporters and weren't talking for everyone else...

Since the GOP like to quote Churchill, perhaps hoping that some of the great statemanship will somehow rub off on Bush, or more realistically, praying that they can convince the electorate that Bush is a great statesman, I'll share a few more of his quotes with you;

Quote:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.


Quote:
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.


Quote:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.

Top
#239468 - 31/10/2004 06:37 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
Geez Jim! I wanted to have some free time tonight! Let the bottom posting begin!


Correspondents tend to be college-educated. Colleges are known to be havens for liberal thinking, so correspondents must then be disproportionately liberal.

Quote:
This is bordering on elitist territory by assuming that most college educated peoples are of a liberal mindset so...[snip].


I confress to being an evil PITA. I am letting a certain mocking sarcasm creep into my posts. My "Colleges are known to be havens for liberal thinking' was simply my attempt to coopt conservative rant about the left-wing biases of academia. It was a joke. Likewise, I have taken to proactive pre-labeling any non-true-believers as comsymps and such. I figure that will save others the trouble.

Quote:
Journalism professors, on the other hand, do tend to be quite liberal. I know first hand how we had to read only liberal books on the evils of consumerism and the blessings of large government in order to pass a class

Books on the blessings of large government? You mean large government provides blessing in and of itself. Cool! Let's make government bigger if that helps! Ummmm, is it possible that some of those books mentioned things that government actually did?

Quote:
(and write only praising reviews to get a good grade). I thank God that I was repulsed by the requirement to write at a 5th grade reading level. This moved me out of broadcast journalism.


Was writing at a 5th grade level intended so that your future work would be intelligible to the majority of likely voters? That doesn't seem too heinous. Or did they insist that you write like a simpleton just to grind away at your self-esteem?

Quote:
The real problem IMO is that most journalists are driven by the desire to "change the world" which is not what journalism is about. If anything, that's what editorials are for. But, growing up in the age of Watergate and the McCarthyism, there is a mold for these budding journalists to fit into... Unfortunately, journalists/activists don't get the luxury of graduating to a better life. Instead, they get hired by the likes of Arthur O. Sulzberger.


Ah, AOS of the Illuminati:

Mr. Sulzberger needs to speak out fully in public, both about his political agendas and his coverage of the September 11 hearings and Iraq. He is the secretive, unelected and privileged publisher of one of the world's most influential newspapers, a newspaper that readers once trusted to inform them in perilous times. Source: http://www.raginglady.com/Arthur_Sulzberger.htm

Maybe I don't hold unelected presidents to the same standard as quasi-elected presidents. I don't know. I do think that I hold the NYT to a high standard. It is just amusing that my beef with them comes from 180 degrees opposite from what I am guessing yours might be. They f*cked up, big time.

Quote:
I seriously doubt you'll be motivated to write and complain about a bunch of journalists


Most of it is just second-rate e-mail, but my sent mail shows at least 21 (critical) messages sent to leftist media outlets like NPR, NYT and Seattle PI in the past 12 months. I know, I should be doing more.

Quote:
UN approval is nice (although it wasn't enough for Kerry in the Persian Gulf War),


Is there some requirement that he/we agree with a war because of UN approval? There were a lot of things flying around back then that could leave a borderline pacifist confused. Like non-existent babies being dumped out of non-existent incubators being described by non-existent witnesses ., so maybe we should cut John and other skeptics some slack.

Quote:
but shouldn't be a requirement for the United States or any country to protect itself.

I see that other BBSistas have challenged you on this point so I won't pigpile.

Quote:
If not having UN approval is "one of many reasons" to oppose something, I don't how this can be considered anything but a global test.


No. I think of myself as pragmatic and don't like to get sucked into the black/white false dichotomy thrown up by the right wing. "Global Test"? Well, I can say that in the months following 9/11 I stood by silently, somewhat uncomfortably, while GWB and Co took unilateral action in A'stan. I would have silently stood, by, too if it was a Gore administration dropping the smart bombs, but I confess that I would have had fewer anxieties about ulterior geopolitical motives. Do you somehow think that liberals are incapable of responding to threats? are incapable of rising to the defense?

Quote:
But again, we are debating issues that we'll never agree on.

Oh, I don't know. I get the sense that I am slowly winning you over.

Quote:
The real point was that a journalist's viewpoint should not enter into his job.

Yes and no. I think it is an illusion to think that the various Brokaws don't have their own viewpoint and that they can always keep it out of their work. I would like to think that what I am reading/watching/listening to is at least well researched and grounded in fact. On the other hand, if we insisted that all journalist be completely neutral automatons, we would never have the Pentagon Papers or heard about My Lai.

Quote:
Whether it be politics, sports or the purple section of USA Today, a journalists job is to tell the public what has happened.

But somewhere along the line, somebody decides what games to cover, what stories to tell.

Quote:

The world at large can have whatever sense they want. The point is that Russia vowed to veto any UN action in Bosnia so the US acted unilaterally. Clinton was smart enough to know that the UN was and is useless except when it comes to issuing pointless resolutions. (Just look at how many humanitarian disasters have happened as the UN sat idly by.)

I would agree that the UN's track record in the face of genocidal disasters of the past 20 years is not good. But what to do about that? What would the response of the world community be like -- how much better might have been our response in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc -- if the UN did not exist?

What I would call the Rush wing of US political opinion thinks that the answer to such dilemmas lies with mocking and disparaging the UN. I am not entirely certain what the remainder of their plan is for dealing with situations like Rwanda. Me? I am a lame-brained liberal internationalist. I stupidly think that institutions like the UN could become more effective if we supported them and tried to help them improve. And to say that the UN is completely ineffectibve is just not right. Look at the track record of agencies like WHO and IAEA.

Quote:
Some ground troops would have been nice, and it would ave been nice to let our pilots fly lower to avoid civilian deaths, but Clinton did the right thing.

I think you are now pulling my leg in revenge. Would you have supported a Clinton ground war?

Who would have criticized Bush for *not* invading Iraq?

Quote:
Once Saddam succeeded in lifting sanctions and reconstituting his weapons programs, the same people that point the finger at Bush for letting 9/11 happen, except that this time, they would have a valid argument. As Churchill said

I won't take you to task for quoting Churchill, and I think your Saddam threat has been adequately dealt with elsewhere.

Back to my point, though, I think that had Bush *not* invaded Iraq, the degree of outcry both foreign and domestic would be much less. Bush second-guessed with "Why didn't he invade?" 6-10 years down the road? Only by loonies.

Presently, we have a sitting President who *may* have been wirelessly prompted through a Presidential debate, but the only journalists with the temerity to ask what that bulge was live within the confines of a comic strip. That's not good.

Quote:
This is tin-foil hat stuff.

Maybe. I am a pretty trusting guy, actually. Maybe this shows just how low the Trust Meter has dropped. So what *was* that hump? Ah, somebody mentioned bullet-proof vest! Cool. That's plausible. Let's just go find a bullet-proof vest with a buckle in the back like a tright jacket. I am not trying to be ornery. Somebody explain it and I will shut up.

Quote:
Was he wearing earmuffs or something to cover his ears so that we couldn't see an IFB sitting in there?

Oh, ye of such small technological faith. You don't think WHCA can do better than Miracle Ear?

Tim Russert *is* one of those college-educated liberals, I think. What does he do that is unfair?

Quote:
I said in my post that Russert was a liberal and I didn't care. He does his job. He respects the people he interviews and respects his position as the host of one of the longest running political shows in the US. I have deep respect for him. It's impossible to expect any reporter to have "no views" at all. The problem only shows up when those views are reflected in the reporting. He does slip up from time to time on the Today show, but that's my fault for tuning in!

I applaud your respect for Tim Russert.

Quote:
To my amazement, there are still people who think it *was* winnable, and blame Cronkite, Fonda and others for our defeat. You?

Who can ever know? I was born in 1975, so I was too preoccupied with um.. I don't remember. I do know that the Vietnamese say that the Anti-War movement in the US is what gave them faith to keep fighting. At that point, they knew they didn't have to win strategically. All they had to do was cause enough US casualties to sway public opinion. The Vietnamese even have John Kerry and Jane Fonda in their museum .

Before we get too far afield, let us look at 55K US deaths versus 1.5 *million* indigenous deaths. Now not all of these were deaths of our "opponents"
Quote:
I sure as hell think that we could have won, had the war been fought differently from Day One, but that's all hindsight. Communism didn't spread throughout South East Asia after that, but anyone who claims to know whether that was or was not because Vietnam stopped that tide is talking out of their ass.

Oh, so you mean that all of thse functionaries who yapped incessantly about the so-called Domino Theory were talking out of their ass, too?

I mention relative mortality figures just to have you consider this notion of "the anti-war movement ...gave uis faith to keep fighting". Hey, they said it, so who am I to argue? But I recommend that you consider Viietnamese resolve, for good or ill, more broadly. Recommended reading: Bernard Fall's _Hell in a Very Small Place_.

Oh, and Edward R. Murrow was, I'm pretty certain, a liberal, thank goodness. [/color

Quote:
But that's not what made him a great reporter.

I am not sure I agree. Murrow was nothing without his liberal ideals, and his tribulations (such as wth _Harvest of Shame_) were tightly tied to his liberal/progressive core.

McGovern spells out what liberalism has accomplished. What has conservatism gotten us?

Quote:
Winning the Cold War and allowing millions of people to live in freedom comes to mind.


McGovern lists:

-Social Security
-Medicare
-rural electrification
-minimum wage
-collective bargaining
-Pure Food and Drug Act
-federal aid to education / land-grant colleges
-guaranteed bank deposits
-Federal Reserve
-Securities and Exchange Commission
-Food and Drug Administration
-National Park Service
-National School Lunch Program
-Voting Rights Act
-graduated income tax

and you counter with "winning the Cold War and allowing millions of people to live in freedom".

Not to minimize the impact of this, but I don't think it would be fair to ignore the less-than-perfect state of current affairs. Various post-soviet "stans" are now effectively dictatorships and our beloved Russia has just recently, for all intents, turned into a single-party dictatorship. Give me Social Security any day!

Edit: I came back to fix some typos and the color tag below, but, reading the statement above, I think it is inadequate. Maybe my last sentence should read "As an example of an unequivocal good thing, give me Social Security any day". Having seen wall-era Berlin east and west, I will jump on board with "allowing millions of people to live in freedom" even given some of Germany's post-unification tribulations. I just don't see the outcome of the breakup of the USSR in such uniformly rosey terms, given the dictatorial grip taking hold in the remains of that empire. It would make an interesting thread all by itself.

Does anybody in the current Iraq command structure respect Dill O'Reilly? Oh, he's not a journalist. Or is he?

Quote:
I think they do in spades. Because he supports and respects them. He honors their service and doesn't view them as war criminals in waiting. His ratings are doing pretty well too. But no, he is not a journalist. He is a political commentator who editorializes current events. I know that he leans Right of center, but he tells you that. In contrast, the Katies, Dans and Peters of the world pretend to be objective.


I asked that half rhetorically, as I *have* to believe that some troops watch Bill (did I type Dill? What a typo! I think I'll keep it!) and shout "Hooah"!

Ah, well, like the warrior GWB, I don;t think DO'R really cares one whit about them. Just my perception.

NPR comsymp Daniel Schorr had an interesting off-the-cuff spin this AM -- that any mention of "Iraq" helps Kerry while any mention of "terrorism" helps Bush. I don't know.

Quote:
I would agree with him at first glance, but then that would have put Bush's numbers at 5% by now if it were true (considering how often Iraq is in the news). Kerry's position on Iraq changes so often, he's better off not having to talk about it.

I could agree with this, except that anytime likely voters hear "Iraq", they are more likely to think of theor nephew or neice, their son or daughter, rather than Kerry's flipping.

Knowledge of unsecured or porrly secured dumps from which insurgents could lift large quantities of explosives, ammo, RPGs were in the news early on in the "post-war" war, weren't they?

Quote:
You misspelled poorly and around (way earlier) btw. I've been waiting like.. two years to do that.


With me squinting through my bifocals to read the small-ass type in this BBS post window, if you haven't seen the hundreds of typos in my previous posts, then maybe you weren't paying attention. Sometimes I see them in Preview Mode, but I got 'Fark, I am too tired. What is a little typo? Will Bitt track me down and shoot me?"

I am not sure why this one is getting so much attention other than the IAEA seals.

Quote:
Because someone from the UN leaked that memo, about an 18 month old story, due to the election being a week away.

Ach! Good for them! About bloody time!
Quote:
That, and Kerry has mentioned it in every speech.

Ah, politics.

A small voice in my head says "Do I want to spend the next four years listening to Republicans yell 'That Flipflopper!'" and a very tiny part of me wants to say "George, you want it? You can have it."

Quote:
I'm glad that you are coming to terms with Bush's inevitable victory already.

"Inevitable?" I know that this is tongue-in-cheek, otherwise you'd come off like Dick Cheney.

Quote:
But the thing to remember is that if Bush wins, as Americans, each and everyone of us is a winner.

I don't have any reason to think you are not sincere.

Everyone of us is a winner? I don't think so.

I *do* hope you'll read genixia's detailed reply and consider what you think about being lied to...serially.

Trust me, I have faint hopw that things are going to be significantly better during the next 4 years if Kerry wins.

I *think* that the likelihood of serious, nuclear-grade, Al Quaeda-delivered disaster in the US in the next 4 years is small, but I *know* it is not zero. And I am fairly certain that the probability of that varies not a whit based on the outcome of this election. What frightens me? For one, the possibility of another f*rked-up electoral outcome that erodes confidence in our revered democracy. Another? Well, one of my siblings is likely to pull the lever on Tuesday for GWB in the mistaken belief that it will keep her and her USMCR son safe. She, I think, is like many folks who would like to pull the lever, close her eyes, and let George "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here:. I shudder to think of the blow she and many others will need to absorb if and when the Bush "Bring 'em on" talisman fails.


Edited by jimhogan (31/10/2004 20:00)

Top
#239469 - 31/10/2004 15:41 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: jimhogan]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
With me squinting through my bifocals to read the small-ass type in this BBS post window, if you haven't seen the hundreds of typos in my previous posts, then maybe you weren't paying attention. Sometimes I see them in Preview Mode, but I got 'Fark, I am too tired. What is a little typo? Will Bitt track me down and shoot me?"


You can probably tell your web browser to enforce a minimum font size.

Top
#239470 - 31/10/2004 16:28 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: Daria]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
You can probably tell your web browser to enforce a minimum font size.

You know, I did that -- set it to 12 for starters and increased the post window size -- but still have trouble spotting double-key typos like "ii". When I want to take some care I paste from an editor. And I have taken to re-reading my posts to find/fix some of those buiggers. A great enhancement, though, would be a built-in editor that includes colored text highlighting for a threaded response. Shit, then I could edit *really* long responses!!

(I can't see a min font size bigger than 12 for other purposes, but maybe I should give it a go.)
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#239471 - 31/10/2004 17:02 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: Daria]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
I still haven't seen it.

I saw it. Effective propaganda....open to criticism as others have noted.

IMO, Moore could have made a more effective movie if he had kept it shorter. Like seven minutes.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#239472 - 31/10/2004 17:16 Re: the Rove shocker.... [Re: jimhogan]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
Oh, amusingly there's a guy who lives like 2 blocks away who has not just a bumper sticker, but pro-Bush (actually, anti-Kerry, usually) slogans chalked on his work vehicle. The day Moore was going to be at CMU, it said "Like Joseph Goebbels? You'll love Michael Moore."

Well, ok. If he means that as a propagandist, Moore is even better than Goebbels, that might be true. But Goebbels was the mouthpiece of a power at war (for those in power there), and Moore is a mouthpiece against such. So I'd figure he'd like Goebbels, but not Moore

This conclusion is no more specious than his suggestion.

Anyway, Goebbels staged the burning of the books in 1933; The stifling of speech you disagree with? Well, I didn't sign a loyalty oath to get in to see Moore. And there are other such contrasts available. So, is a comparison of Moore to Goebbels apt?

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >