Redstate

And we are supposed to expect anything remotely resembling truth and fact from the press? How about this little bit of cr*p from the "estimable" Chris Matthews of NBC:

Hatred blinds US to truth

Four years after 9/11 and the "crazy zeitgeist" that permeated the United States, most Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them, U.S. political journalist Chris Matthews says.

In a speech to political science students at the University of Toronto yesterday, the host of the CNBC current affairs show Hardball had plenty of harsh words for U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as the political climate that has characterized his country for the past few years.

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."

He said Bush squandered an opportunity to unite the world against terrorism and instead made decisions that have built up worldwide animosity against his administration. - © The Toronto Sun [emphasis added]

Source: DrudgeReport.com

-------------

Apologies for quoting the entire piece, but it was very short and difficult to figure out which bits could stand alone.

------------------------------------------

If this country is going to have a healthy debate about the future of the United States vis-à-vis Iraq, it is time for truth and truth only. The Democrats and their media seem to be trapped in a quagmire of it's own making.

Quagmire? They have no interest in anything remotely resembling an 'honest debate.' They aren't trapped in a quagmire, they know exactly what they are doing, where they are going and why they are doing it. And it has nothing to do with truth, facts, honor. The agenda is the neutering of the United States on the alter of 'internationalism.'

They know full well that the vast majority of Americans get their news from the local paper and the TV evening news. Keep repeating cr*p often enough and it becomes fact.

Service in the military does not make one neccessarily smarter, when it comes to foriegn policy decision, nor does it mean his position deserves more credit than anyone else's.

The criticism is also just-at least from McClellan-he demands a pullout, but doesn't really say how a pull out helps the US, how it makes us more secure, or how it helps Iraq.

The whining on the left is based on the fact that Murtha never called for an immediate withdraw of the troops (which is accurate).  Murtha was actually attempting to introduce a resolution which called for a "timely redeployment as soon as possilbe" with Marines remaining to gaurd the henhouse until the Iraqi's stepped it up a notch.  

It was the Republican introduced resolution that called for the "immediate" withdrawl of the troops from Iraq.  I'm not sure who sponsered it, but they were soundly defeated.

The knife apparently cuts both ways.

Are you questioning Murtha's ability to make reasonable recommendations of military affairs or that of Republican Ohio State Representative Danny R. Bubp who Schmidt was quoting from in her floor speech.

Either way, I don't think either man was provided enough intelligence to be making foriegn policy decisions, perhaps resolutions of the house, but not decisions.

I've noted the frequent use of "lashed out," such as "President Bush today lashed out at critics...." To me, that verb imparts the sense of uncontrolled emotionalism, and Bush's remarks have been reasoned and structured, if forceful. NPR likes the phrase "lashed out" a lot.

You never hear John Kerry "lashing out." He's too sonorous and measured and moderate.

Imbalance arises from even the smallest choice of wording.

UPDATE: Ahh, I may have to frog-march into a reversal. USA Today reported that Murtha lashed out. So there's some balance, verbiagewise.

Anyway, listen for it ....

The whining on the left is based on the fact that Murtha never called for an immediate withdraw of the troops (which is accurate).

Indeed, this is not accurate.  From the press release on Murtha's very own Congressional webpage:

My plan calls:  

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.  


To create a quick reaction force in the region.


To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.  


To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq  

This war needs to be personalized.  As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war.  They are suffering.

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them.  That's why I am speaking out.  

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.  IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

(bold emphasis mine, capitalization of the last sentence is as it appears on Murtha's webpage)

Can everyone drop the "he didn't mean pull the troops out NOW" charade, please?

One of the endless sources of entertainment from the left is their hiliariously elastic definition of "fact"

the fact that Murtha never called for an immediate withdraw of the troops (which is accurate)

Well let's see, Murtha himself explicitly said he wanted immediate withdrawal, repeating it 4 times in his Nov. 17 statement:

"The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces ... My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces"

But if the left feels more comfortable believing that "Murtha never called for immediate withdrawal", Murtha's own statements explicitly calling for immediate withdrawal are irrelevant. Ummm, we would just be immediately redeploying our troops out of Iraq, but not immediately withdrawing them from Iraq?

Gotta love those liberals! ;-)

and I say he should be censured and be FROG MARCHED (tm) out of the Capitol Building and placed in irons.

Murtha has in fact called for the immediate withdrawl of the troops.

But, assume for a moment that he actually meant what you think he meant. Are you going to volunteer to be one of the guys who gets to 'guard the henhouse' while everyone else pulls out over the next six months? What do we say to the wife to the last soldier to die 5 months and 29 days from the beginning of Murtha's withdrawl as soon as 'practicable'? Unless of course you think the bad guys are just going to wave at the troops as they leave Dodge.

I don't feel misled about pre-war intelligence.  Period.  We made a mistake, I'm past it.

What I feel misled by is the "sin of omission", that one of their primary goals was to execute the policies described, at length, in PNAC.

.. that's what I feel completely misled about.  I just don't think this "disapproval with the war" stuff has been parsed out completely yet and that once it has been - by-and-large the result will be that most people who now oppose the war, oppose it because of the ideology pushed in PNAC.

Even if PNAC seems like a "good idea" to you.... You must admit, that was never sold as a reason for going into Iraq (presumably because it wouldn't float and would have sparked a national debate on the subject).

It seems to me that we have now reached (or soon will) the point where the reason for being in Iraq transitions from real national security concerns to this PNAC ideology.  I, for one, simply cannot support leaving our troops in harms way for that.

- Greg

I can't be absolutely sure that SicSemperTyrannus is a moby, but whether that or just plain crazy, I think calling Rep. Murtha a traitor, instead of say misguided or stupid, should be out of bounds. Unless you've got evidence of some specific act deliberately trying to help the enemy, treason accusations are worse than profanity.

SicSemperTyrannus already received a warning for calling for Sen. Rockefeller to be executed for treason (hopefully in jest). So this time he "only" calls for Murtha to be placed in irons.

I keep seeing the media claim that Murtha has been described as a coward, unpatriotic, and/or uncourageous. The Democrats claim that the Republicans are saying those very things about him.

Yet, in all the reading that I have done, I don't see any examples of an elected Republican actually accusing Murtha of being any of those things.

So, the question that I have is this: where are they (the media/Democrats) getting this from? Have they invented it of whole cloth, is it a spin, or did somebody really do it and I just missed it?

I just want to join in and say that we spend alot of time talking about the liberal media, but hasn't that myth been debunked several times in the last five years?  Also don't forget that the liberal media went after Clinton in full force during his scandal years. Not that I'm a clinton supporter, I just don't believe the media is as liberal as we think.

Murthas confrontational cut-and-run tone sounded like a call for the immediate withdrawl of the troops. However, in saying REDEPLOY he may have given himself a little wiggle room.

re·de·ploy   (re·de·ployed, re·de·ploy·ing, re·de·ploys)

   1. To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.

   2. To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness: redeploy the company's resources.

That said, it sure sounded like cut-and-run to me, too.

imply?

Again, same words quoted, with emphasis added where it was ignored:

My plan calls:  

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. that concern for troops you conveniently ignored

To create a quick reaction force in the region.doesn't sound like a full pull-out, does it?

To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.  

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq  

...

...

...IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

Indeed...not such a bad idea when you think about it

Blindly vilifying Murtha makes as much sense as blindly vilifying bush.

on what the meaning of "is" is :-)

I didn't say that the media were necessarily liberal, just that they were running this line of speech that I could not find a factual basis for.

My opinion on the media is that their first and only priority is to cover themselves covering something -- it's the Watergate syndrome, and it's applied to everything. It explains the Clinton-Lewinsky saga quite well, actually.

There's no doubt that the vast majority of individuals in major American media are Democrats, and the vast majority of Democrats are liberals. So, we can presume that the people writing the stories, editing the stories, and publishing the stories are more than likely liberals.

Does that make the media liberal? You tell me. I'm just wondering where this line of speech came from in the first place.

I just don't believe the media is as liberal as we think.

And I think you are wrong :-)

Just google schmidt, murtha, coward.




She was carrying a message from a state legislator in ohio, and said it on the House floor.  She didn't call him a coward, she was the just the messanger for a message that came very close to actually saying that.

REP. JEAN SCHMIDT: A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.

But his brains are scrambled.

Immediate redeployment consistent with safety is just that. We could have the guys out almost immediately--safety and security of the Iraqis be damned.

As for a regional strike force, I suppose, but where? I propose Iraq.

"It's time to bring them home." There goes the regional strike force.

Let's be plain. The guy is hacking for the Dems. No crime there.

I find it hard to believe that, if we were to remove all of our troops that the Democrats would be pushing to send them all right back in. If that is the case, then why do it in the first place?

I also thing that "consistent with the safety of US forces" pretty much means anywhere but Iraq to a democrat politicial.

"Create a quick reaction force"...of what, diplomats?

More likely this force will be standing right next to the Over-the-horizon presence...waaaaaaaaaaay over the horizon, somewhere in New Jersey.

It's just that when you put together EVERYTHING the democrats have said, i doubt this amounts to anything else but ITS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

that the MSM media isn't liberal. As soon as you "think", you realize that it is.

No no, I live-blogged the entire proceedings for No End But Victory, so there's no twisting what happened with Jean Schmidt.

She relayed a generic message from a veteran who happened to be one of her constituents and an elected official, who said simply that "cowards cut and run; Marines never do."

She never said Murtha was a coward, she never implied it. I don't even know that that colonel, her constituent, implied it. He was merely making a statement.

If Murtha never endorsed cutting and running (the Democrats' public line on this matter), then what does it matter? Clearly, if Murtha isn't for cutting and running, then Bubp was not speaking about him.

So which is it? Is Murtha for cutting and running or not? If not, then Bubp clearly was not referring to him, therefore the coward argument is a non-starter.

she wouldn't have sent it publicly...just an observation here.  It was an insult to a twice-purple-hearted and bronze-starred war veteran...she should be intelligent enough to realise that before speaking up in an open session.  Her words were inflammatory, period.  

Murtha's comments about Cheney's five deferments were inflammatory, too...and, like Schmidt's comments, meant to be.  So they're even...neither needs defending on this point.

where are they (the media/Democrats) getting this from?

I was just answering this question.  I didn't expect to spring the carefully laid trap you had there, wait I think I hear a democrate coming.

We have some 160,000 troops on the ground now and according to Murtha and his friends on the left "we can't win militarily."

Which raises the question "if 160,000 well equipped, well supplied troops operating from secured locations on the ground can't win, what are several thousand 'quick reaction' troops going to accomplish (even if they are, wow,  Marines.)" Especially since they have to bring everything with them and fight their way into territory that we currently hold. The simple answer to this is that they would never do anything because the Dems don't actually intend them to do anything. Pure unadulterated window dressing.

The Democrats are great at this kind of sabre-rattling when there is a Democrat president. They pontificate and posture and threaten all the while knowing that the their man in the Whitehouse won't really do anything so they don't have anything to worry about, it's just talk. Recall all the dire warnings about Saddam and the threats and sabre-rattling when Clinton was president; and what did he actually do about Saddam? Bupkiss.

"Create a quick reaction force"...of what, diplomats?

I think the plan is to assemble a crack team of former ambassadors from the Clinton administration, who happen to have spouses working for the CIA and a desire for free travel.

Here are a few more headlines shaping the news - it's as if they didn't hear the speech at all.

Murtha hasn't apologized for comments he himself directed at the Vice President.

Ms. Schmitt has apologized for her comments.

I'd say something about "being man enough to apologize", but who needs another cycle of "HOW DARE YOU, I'M A WAR HERO!!!".

--furious

Nobody called him a coward. That's not what the words say. You can infer whatever you want but the actual words do matter.

I would also like to know when it was that Cheney called him a coward, since that is widely being reported. I'm guessing there is even less substance behind that.

equipped with the new M-4329 High Velocity Attache Case. It delivers over 100 diplomatic notes per day on full automatic.

...called Cheney a coward?  Please show me where I used those words.

Although, anyone with two brain cells to click together knows that...

"some guy with five deferments" = "CHICKENHAWK!  CHICKENHAWK!".

Please wasted your own time, not mine, parsing "inferences".

--furious

I didn't respond to your comment at all.

...wait for it...I'm sorry.  Guess I need to learn to follow response trees.

I'll just shut up now and lurk.

--furious

having served in the military doesn't automatically mean that ones opinions on military matters-deployments, foreign policy etc are automatically correct, or automatically better than someone's who hasn't served.

Saying that a person's who has served is off their rocker in regard to their ideas also isn't questioning their patriotism or calling them a coward.  

"And as in previous primary victory speeches, John Kerry lashed out at President Bush and ignored his rivals."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/18/lad.08.html

being liberal.

I think the media does chase stories, and is always drawn to the tabloidesque stories-which explains the Clinton stuff (and can you get anymore tabloidesque than the whole Monica stuff?).

But the bias of the media is as much in what they don't tell us, than in what they do tell us-and here they are mostly fudging the facts.

in general it was more of a read between the lines, and figure out which side you are on statement.

If he interpreted it as being called a coward, then apparently he was and is for "cutting and running" if he isn't or wasn't arguing "cut and run" then the statement didn't apply.

But back to the media-this representative isn't a member of the WH staff or the administration, she is an elected official from Ohio, but the media and the dems are arguing that the "coward" comments are coming from the WH.  That is called fudging the facts.

Also, in her defense she did apologize for the comment-whether it was genuine or not is in the air, but she did make one.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking you those questions; I'm just asking them in general.

Sorry if I made it seem like I was jumping on you.

apologies, apologies, apologies...the righteous indignation (on the left as well as on the right) gets old fast, don't you think? Cheney and bush both said that criticizing the war and its reasons was 'irresponsible', hence opening themselves up for return-fire criticism...they can't say they're big-boys one minute (talking tough,calling people 'evil-doers', wearing the white hat, etc.) AND demand 100% compliance...only dictators like Saddam Hussein demand that kind of blind loyalty.  

Schmidt shouldn't have apologised, if what she said was what she meant.  She was just a little surprised that a few bitter words worked like salt on open wounds...everyone's a little trigger happy these days...we'll have to see how long it takes for her to find her voice again.

When was the last time Scottie answered a direct question in a press briefing?  He loves playing word games with the press...so does everyone else on the hill (left and right alike)...

Its the new CIA/NYT/moveon.org joint sponsored top secret BOSE 'Clearchannels' view-screen and headset combo for socialist liberal journalists.  Seems to have a few bugs, as some journalists don't get all the conservative facts filtered out of the stream yet.  But they are working on it.  Should return to global sycophantation soon.  The CIA is exited about the new feature 'super wave' leak stoppage warning system installed in this model.

I'm willing to do it with my eyes wide open.

Points one, two and three (redeploying, creating a quick reaction force in the region, an over-the-horizon presence) are utterly devoid of reality.

... if we "redeploy" the terrorists will insist, and rightly so, that they've defeated us.  Our troop draw-down MUST be based on the stabilized political conditions in Iraq and NOTHING else.

... exactly where in the "region" would you like to put that quick reaction force?  And what would it consist of?  Perhaps a Marine MEU.  They are designed to be deployable in 24 hours and be self sustained for 30 days before relief.  But what, pray tell would they be called upon to do?  And if you expect them to be called upon why would you pull a much larger force including armor in the first place?

... an over the horizon force?  What's that, a larger MEU, again with no armor?

In terms of military planning, this is without doubt the lamest excuse for a plan ever put forth.  

It's time to bring them home?  Not until the mission is complete.  That means a government in place and Iraqi security forces who can defend their country.  If it takes two more years, so be it.  The world will be a safer place.

If we cut and run, follow Murtha's cowardly plan (note, the plan is cowardly not the man), the world - especially the US - will be a much more dangerous place.

Cheney and bush both said that criticizing the war and its reasons was 'irresponsible'

Show me the quotes.

Otherwise, quit perpetuating the irreponsible and reprehensible claims that the President deliberately manipulated the intelligence and deliberately mislead American citizens.

Anyone that keeps up the "Bush Lied" perfidy is going to have their patriotism questioned by me!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051117-10
142100-bc-skorea-bush-warcritics.xml

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051118b.asp

From South Korea, President Bush called the recent war of words "irresponsible." Bush said, "This is serious business - winning this war. But it's irresponsible to do what they've done."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/051117

At long last, President Bush came out on Veterans' Day and branded those charging him with deliberately deceiving the American people in order to invade Iraq "irresponsible."

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051115/NEWS/511150378
/1039

More on Google...

Anyone know the source for the Murtha statements of "80% of Iraqis want us to leave" and "40% think it's o.k. to attack US troops"? I'd like to look at the sample - because it seems that the Iraqi politicians are pretty solidly behind wanting us to stay and Kurds and Shia, I imagine, are pretty solidly behind us as well.

from your link

"When Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible," Bush said. "They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted to support the decision I made.

"What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics."

Just as I stated. GW was calling the assertion of deliberate misleading "irresponsible". Not policy criticism.

What the heck has happened to reading comprehension in this country?

President's actual words instead of someone's (mis)characterization?

Bush and Cheney are not calling policy disagreements (ie "criticism" of war) irresponsible, only the mendacious assertions of deliberate misleading of Congress and citizens.

here

I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way. [...]

Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated. But nobody is saying we should not be having this discussion, or that you cannot reexamine a decision made by the President and the Congress some years ago. To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind ourselves why this nation took action, and why Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and why we have a duty to persevere.

What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.

Do you need it translated on the curve for you?

just like he does our own military officers.

<Frog Marched™>  <traitor>  <Rove>  <Wilson>  <moonbats>

See any potential jokes in here?

I think that's what it was.

I think there is a continuum of beliefs one can have about Bush and the war.

1. The administration presented the case even-handedly for the war
   
2. The administration sold the war but never said anything materially false
   
3. The administration aggressively sold the war and occassionally made important false claims, but did so because they believed the war was just and very important
   
4. The administration made frequent false claims on behalf of a war they believed would benefit the country.
   
5. The administration is evil, went to war for oil or some other crazy theory ...

I would put myself down for #3.  I think most reasonable left-wingers are in for #4 although I know there are 5's out there.  My sense from the comments here is that most readers would be #1 or #2.  Is that right?

If so, can anyone point me to a serious piece that attempts to explain the most egregious statements that I see over and over again on left-wing sites (e.g. Cheney on Atta in Prague)?

Tom

But those assertions are considered to be critism. Is it wrong to wonder about whether people are lied to by any given official of the government. Or to say that out loud?

When Clinton said he did not "have sexual relationsips with that woman" and then his opponents came out and said he was lying was that not critism?

Is this a case of wrong terminalogy here.

irresponsible

we would have to what we did in Dresden and Nagasaki

said anything materially false

Do you do those Updates?

no one ever said anything about adults behaving like children

Speaking at the Hotel Hyundai in Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, President Bush had this to say in response to a US reporter's loaded question:

Q Mr. President, Vice President Cheney called it reprehensible for critics to question how you took the country to war, but Senator Hagel says it's patriotic to ask those kinds of questions. Who do you think is right?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The Vice President.

Q Why?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted to support the decision I made. It's irresponsible to use politics. This is serious business making -- winning this war. But it's irresponsible to do what they've done. So I agree with the Vice President.

Q -- (inaudible) --

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think people ought to be allowed to ask questions. It is irresponsible to say that I deliberately misled the American people when it came to the very same intelligence they looked at, and came to the -- many of them came to the same conclusion I did. Listen, I -- patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is taking place in America.

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm not up to speed with the latest rumours from lefty-land. What is this about Cheney-Atta-Prauge?

I assume the left is convinced Atta was never in Prauge (or finds it convenient to pretend to be convinced), but there must be more to it than that.

We basically have two choices. (1) Remain as we are, and spend the foreseeable future fighting criminals in the streets of Iraq who believed they are engaged in some type of holy war, (2) Send in enough troops to arrest a large majority of one of the ethnic groups in Iraq so that the conflict can be more clearly recognized between the other two, and then tell the other two to work it out (but this will require more troops), or (3) reinforce the areas around the bases which we have secured, keep enough men there so that they can protect themselves.

The point Murtha was making is what incentive do the Iraqi's have to get their troops trained if we are willing to do it for them.

What incentive to they have to figure out how to live together under a democracy while the "imperialists" are still "occcupying their land".

We have our strategic bases mapped out, we know what America needs to protect strategically, I still can't see how the hell the Mayor of Fallujah play's into the whole thing, but let the Iraqi's figure that out.

Our troops should be there to protect each other, not those who have failed to protect themselves for over a year.

I was not clear, but in my head "knowlingly" was present in all the options.  

is well illustrated here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007026.php

Cheney went from saying on national television that the meeting was pretty well confirmed to saying well we don't actually have any evidence but the one report.

Tom

is a ministry that could be a full-time job for someone who has a far higher threshold for "suffering fools gladly" than I personally possess - which is, truth be told, rather low.

As such, I think you'll find it unlikely that there exists a single, comprehensive, one-stop-shopping clearinghouse for the debunking of Talking Points™ and Known Facts™ that seem to ooze out of the left-blogosphere.  Besides, let's be honest here - if someone currently sits in Category 4 (and certainly 5), is there anything that can be said to dissuade said Kool-Aide drinker from that POV?

Finally, as your categories 3-5 all tend to revolve around the general BUSH LIED! meme, it would be helpful if the people pushing that Learned Wisdom™had more to back-up their claims than the continued absence of Saddam's WMD stockpiles.  In other words, it would be helpful if they could demonstrate that, in fact, Bush actually "lied" about something.  Otherwise, the task of debunking said Talking Point™ rapidly devolves into trying first to pin-down precisely what is said "point" - which can be an equally frustrating and poorly-rewarding task in and of itself.

and he had to be contented.

... and we'll have to go help them out soon.

It takes 3 months just to get an appointment to get my furnace cleaned. I think a big problem with many opposed to the war is that they expect everything to run perfectly choreographed and over in an hour, like the West Wing. Only a week after we entered Iraq it was a failure, a month later it was a quagmire, every step of the way, as we were winning, we were supposedly losing.

Just to become a state trooper in NY you have to go through a 24 week basic course, 10 weeks of field training and then you are on probation for 1 year. So it takes 1 year and 24 weeks to become a trooper. And that's entry level. Even veteran officers routinely go back to training.

Then you have to consider how long it takes to become a commanding officer, seargent, top brass, etc. with the experience to actually do the job correctly. I just think that there has to be more realistic expectations on how long something like this will take.

The day we went in I figured I would see where we are in 10 years. Hopefully with a permanent base in the region and WalMarts on every corner. :-)

wish to see the insurgents go away?  Did they even ask?

If they did ask, it must have been 90%, which is probably why it didn't make it to press.

Although the Telegraph is not as wacko-left as The Guardian, it is still a British paper, so I take this poll with two grains of salt.  The article stated that the poll was nationwide, but I am willing to bet that it was somewhat weighted with answers from the British sector of Iraq, around Basra, which will probably be our next area of combat operations.

Strieff, do you have any updates on the Basra Jailbreak?

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."

<humour>Coming from a crazy leftist this is a very charitable way to approach George Bushes policies and ideas .</humour>

:)

Cheney backed away from earlier administration characterizations of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as a coward and instead clled [sic] him "a good man, a Marine, a patriot."

I did not know that Jean Schmidt is "an administration official".

But in a year and a half we haven't trained 2 batallions of Iraqi soldiers?

Maybe we shouldn't demand that their army be as well trained as ours is?  Maybe we should leave the training up to them (and the missions).

We could stay on in an advisory capacity, providing them with logistics, ground weapons, and when necessary airial support, but leave them on the front lines.

If there are not enough Iraqi's to do the job, then perhaps the job is not worth doing to them.  We have 160,000 people there.  They have a few million.  Why the hell are we on the front lines?

...is good NCOs.  Which take longer than 5 1/2 months to train.

This is like slinging racial slurs, and expecting a "hey no offense, just kidding" disclaimer to make it all ok.

Actually I and a friend used to make racist insults at each other in a context where we both knew it was a joke; but we both also knew that the burden of proof for that kind of rhetoric was that you just didn't use it at all except where it was absolutely clear that what we were saying in no way whatsoever represented our views. In particular, a cardinal rule for racist humor is never use it on anyone except people you like, so it's indisputable that you don't mean it.

Calling someone a traitor is similar. There can be contexts where the person using the term is actually making fun of himself; but tossing that insult at a person most of us have a low opinion of, and in the context of this debate, is pretty lame.

If someone wants to tell a joke, is your sense of humor so underdeveloped that you can't you come up with anything funnier to say than just calling a political opponent a traitor? And including "Frog Marched" doesn't do much to either make it funny or in good taste.

A few that jump to mind:

1. The above comment on Atta is one example
   
   
2. The aluminum tubes is another famous one

A reasonable list is here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php

A more recent example is Bush's comment that "we do not torture."

Tom

Marshall cites what he seems to think is "deception", and offers as evidence the fact that, when Czech intelligence reported that Atta met with the IIS in Prauge, Cheney discussed the matter as if it was a fact. (So did the New York Times.)

He subsequently was careful to qualify his statements, once questions were raised as to the accuracy of the Czech reports. And yet, in lefty-land, this is considered "proof" that Cheney lied.

I think this illustrates why I never read the left blogs. Marshall is considered a superstar over there, but I'd be embarrassed to display such dishonest and sloppy thinking in a comment on RedState.

To see the latest info on the question, see Atta in Prauge?

Please demonstrate the lie - as in, the deliberate statement of something known at the time to be false by the person making the statement - in any of your examples, or any example in the Washington Monthly article for that matter.

Any one.

Take your time.

When you are not able to so do, yet continue to insist these are evidence in support of the assertion that "BUSH LIED!", you may - if you're thinking clearly - start to get a sense of the utter futility of the task upon which you wish us to spend our valuable spare time.

I think you are still missing something.

I believe you are correct with #3 (which is where I put myself these days, moving down from #2).   But, I'll add to that what, in my mind, is a stunning misrepresentation and the thing which, I think, explains the shift in public perception.

Put simply: We were sold on the notion that we needed to invade because they posed an imminent threat to us.  Now, it seems to me, like the architects of this war are trying to implement an extreme ideological plan, which I know to be something called "PNAC".

Many people may not be familiar with PNAC, but they feel it, in the same way I do that what we are doing over there is ruining this country financially.  And that the plan for success in this engagement is lacking in so many ways as to render it pointless.

- Greg

First of all, I accept that on matters such as war, a "sin of omission" rises to the level of a misrepresentation.  And an intentional misrepresentation is a lie.

We weren't sold PNAC.

What we were sold is that Iraq posed an immediate threat.

The misrepresentation was in conveniently omitting that implementing PNAC was a significant goal of this war effort.  The reason for such an omission is clear on its face: PNAC would never fly with most people, it could be the poster child of extreme ideology.  Can you imagine the debate that would have started if our leadership had said they wanted to invade Iraq to implement PNAC?

What separates the lie from the misrepresnetation, for me, is did he do it intentionally.  Unfortunately, I answer "yes" to this question for myself.

Therefore, yes, as much as it pains me to state that a leader of this country would lie, that is precisely what I believe he did.

- Greg

and we're in no mood for your Talking-Point-O-Matic.

No one in the administration ever called or insinuated Iraq was an immediate threat. To the contrary, we were told we must act before he became one:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Go away. Don't come back. This is not a forum for basing arguments on lies and PNAC conspiracy theories.

whereby I admitted to a low tolerance for suffering fools gladly.

Go sell crazy somewhere else, kid.

tegunder:

I would inject a 2.5.

2.5  The administration aggressively made the case war bolstering their position with the best evidence they had, and not being saddled with  Saddam's burden of proof, sold the war without acknowledging contradictory opinions.

A couple of things about the Bush Lied crowd infuriate me, aside from the obvious "they made the same case with the same intel" truism:

1. "President Bush cited no contradictory evidence (to rebut his claims) in the march to war."  Ridiculous.  Think about any other salesperson.  Does he tell you, "Here's what's great about my product, but here's why its lousy and you might want to reconsider"?  
   
2. They conveniently fail to acknowledge the context of the situation in 2002: we'd just been attacked, 9/11, anthrax, ricin, Saddam violated 17 resolutions, shot at our planes in the no fly zone, etc.
   
3. They have always been like the noisy kids in the back seat firing spitballs at their father (Bush) as he tries to drive on a winding road through a snowstorm.  Worse yet, they wouldn't even be on the road if they didn't have to come back from the stupid soccer trip (Carter's undermining the Shah of Iran, Senator Church's and Torrecelli's immasculation of human intel/assets/resources, Clinton's failure to take UBL three times when offered by Sudan, because he wanted to prosecute a case instead of fight a war, etc.)

As for your question about Atta in Prague, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has evidence that actually occurred, along with the aluminum tubes being the correct specifications for Uranium enrichment, etc.  His book "Connection" debunks 95% of the Left's talking points.

Greg:

PNAC is the best you can do?

You have every right to be wrong, but it is dishonest to advance the argument that President Bush ever said that the threat was "imminent" or even "immediate."

Your hatred for President Bush is obvious, and I don't believe for a moment that it pains you to throw out false accusations.  

If you'd come with some facts, or even a little more intellectual firepower, somebody to the right of Atrios or Daily Kos might take you seriously.  

I'm kind of new here, but their argument seems to have devolved into saying Cheney lied about Atta who wasn't in Prague because his cell phone was still in the U.S.

Brilliant.  

Couldn't possibly have given it to one of the other 18 hijackers because he didn't have international minutes on his plan, or any one of a thousand other reasons.

Maybe the Senate Democrats should call for a commission to investigate who Atta traded Motorolas with.

thanks.

I should have put some commentary with my link. It was not meant as an "Ah hah! Here is proof!" thing. It was just meant to be an example of a story citing Bush and the whole "irresponsible" tag.

I agree that there is a big difference in calling all criticism of the war irresponsible, and calling people who state that Bush misled Congress irresponsible.

I am totally with you on (1) and (2).  However, is (3) really an option?  Can we keep bases without exposing ourselves and continuing to elicit attacks on oil pipelines?  What is needed for the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to reach a political agreement, so they will start to defend their country against the foreign fighters?

Officer, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers who function above rudimentary skills take longer.

Your comment #1 suggests that the standards of salesmen are appropriate for our President taking us into war.  I think we should aim higher than that.

Your comment #2 - I agree that different times require different burdens of proof.

Your comment #3 - Seems like you are just letting off steam.  All the bad things in the world are the fault of the Democrats.  

Tom

I never asked you for your time.  I asked for a point to an article debunking some of the common claims.  No one seems to know of any articule.

As for the specific example, let's run with one I gave.  Note that Cheney describes a theory which has one data point for it and many against it as pretty well confirmed.

Cheney: "it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April"

9-11 Commission Report:http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

Search for Prague on that page, and you will find  a lot of evidence contradicting the idea that Atta was in Prague.  Their conclusion: "The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting."

"a lot of evidence."

Shortly after 9/11, the source reported having seen Atta meet with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, an Iraqi diplomat, at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague on April 9, 2001, at 11:00 A.M. This information was passed to CIA headquarters.[...]

On April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call various lodging establishments in Florida from cell sites within Florida. We cannot confirm that he placed those calls. But there are no U.S. records indicating that Atta departed the country during this period. Czech officials have reviewed their flight and border records as well for any indication that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001, including records of anyone crossing the border who even looked Arab. They have also reviewed pictures from the area near the Iraqi embassy and have not discovered photos of anyone who looked like Atta. No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001.

That is the sum total of the evidence against the April 2001 meeting in Prague, calls from Atta's cellphone and no records Atta was there, ignoring the fact that several of the hijackers had multiple IDs.

So you think "pretty well confirmed" is a good description for a situation where

1. A single source after 9/11 reports that he saw the meeting.  This source is evaluated as 70% credible
   
2. Video evidence places Atta in the US 5 days before and 2 days after
   
3. We can not find any evidence of his leaving the US or enterring the Czech republican during the relevant period in spite of the fact that in previous travels, he went under his own name
   
4. The Czech Republican believes the man was supposed to be meeting was 70 miles aways when the eyewitness claimed it took place
   
5. The circumstantial evidence of the phone calls you mentioned.

If that sum of facts leads you to believe that we should describe the meeting as "pretty well confirmed," I am astonished.

Cheney, himself, of course has backed away from his statement, memorably even denying that he ever made them.  He then concluded "No. All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don't know."

Tom

that you can read the list you present as come to any conclusion stronger than "we don't know".

Atta is unaccounted for on the date of the meeting.

Atta had access to false travel documents.

The Czechs, to this day, stand by their story.

How you can say it was disproved just beggars the imagination.

I don't say "pretty well confirmed" anywhere, unlike your rather hyperbolic interpretation.

Heard these point somewhere before???

Hmmmmmm............

let's see:

1. a single source you give the military industrial complex to much credit...one source
   
2. oohhh the black helicopter are circling.. that statement has no basis in fact!
   
3. Direct from the left wing blogs ............you can do better
   
4. Not relevant
   
5. Give me a break

On another note:

The fact is the last administration sold Kosovo as a genocide with 100,000 people lost when in reality it was more like 2,000 and no one is calling them liars????

My point was that Cheney described the situation that way.  

How would you characterize Cheney's statement?  As far as I know at the time, neither he nor his aides corrected his statement on national television.

Search for Prague on that page, and you will find  a lot of evidence contradicting the idea that Atta was in Prague.

There wasn't "a lot of evidence" contradicting the idea. In fact, there was zero evidence contradicting it. In fact, the strongest statement that can be made is that someone used Atta's cellphone during that time period and that there is no extant record of Atta traveling under his own name.

So is this a lie?

If it is, then I've got to say you nailed Cheney dead to rights. If you want to take the pretty exotic position in the moonbat world that different people can interpret evidence differently, then no it's not a lie.

I repeat myself:

Cheney said this originally: "it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April"

Here's how Cheney later characterized the evidence: "All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don't know."

The best you argue is that he got confused.  I don't see how one data point can be "pretty well confirmed" without, you know, something to confirm it.

Tom

look at your response and decide if you lied. Your answer to that question is my answer to you.

So your position on what Cheney said is somehow determined by what I wrote here.  Presumably, because my view of my own words shows what I define as lying.  

To answer your specific question, no I did not lie.  I gave you four specific examples from the report that are good reasons to believe the meeting never took place.  Against that there is one reason to believe it did take place.  You don't have to take my word for it though.  The 9-11 commission report was clear "The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting."  Were they lying too?  The conspiracy is vast!

Even Cheney himself has retreated from his oriignal statements, vehemently denying he had even made them.

So now you know my position.  How would you describe Cheney's statement - particularly the "confirmed" part.

Tom

This was what I was looking for.  I am curious though how that questions were only raised after his December 2001 comments.  I imagine investigation would have been furious between September and December.

Tom

OK. In search of a more palatable (but not perfect)analogy, substitute attorney or counsel for sales person, case for product.  Can't you see that pleading both sides of the case can only confuse the matter?  Besides, it's not like we were talking about someone who stole a car or something.  We're talking about hundreds of thousands, even millions of our fellow citizens, who could have been in jeopardy, if the intel was accurate.  What responsible leader, in the context of recent attacks, would fail to act?

Another point.  The President did not have the burden of proof, Saddam did...as it should have been.  17 resolutions, 10 years, the whole world in agreement on his status.

My point #3: can you site any part of the statement I made that isn't true?  The adults are always having to clean up the mess left  by the naive little children.  Thank heaven Carter only had four years to damage our national security, but Clinton made up for it with his eight.  The jeopardy he put us in by trading nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions is like the Sword of Damacles hanging over our heads. So as far as blame for the Dems, the shoe fits, so wear it.