Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 12 : 13 : <14> : 15 : 16 . . . . . 23
Cloud
I watch in amazement as the publicly "elected" figures continue getting embarrassed while their supporters, the increasingly deluded wingers on my right, think that every mistake, every failure, every miscalculation, and every illegal act is reason to celebrate in "You can't catch us, nanny nanny boo boo" fashion. Before calling the woman with the dead son a partisan hack, why not look around your house and tell us where your children are. At every step, the right refuses to address "the point," as the big picture, the strategy , receives its weekly reformulation. Before the next time you mock a woman who's son has died chasing the ghosts and ghouls that haunt Bush Junior, bite your tongue and send your kids instead. Don''t like her political cause? What the hell is yours.
Rabban, as usual, it's hard to tell when you're humouring us and when you're not. Maybe make a notation. JJ, your political theatre is in recess, which is not another way of saying that it's over.
Precious morsel:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_cafferty_bush_time_off_050812a.mov
Tally Ho will never accuse anyone of being a "forum god" if he or she must employ the term "raghead" to make a point.
From false premises comes great failure. I like how last week, when the news came out that we very much knew where Osama was but let him free to go chase saddam, none of us batted an eye. Chase your demons wherever you may make them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_popularity;_ylt=At2fQyJv.3sYwczcDBNSUxOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1123813192137
Last edited: Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 8:12:32 PM
Respond to Howard Dean.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Face-the-Nation-Dean-President-needs-a-plan.mov
Howard Dean? Get real.
Just because the salesman works door to door doesn't mean you have to buy his rope.
*
I've enjoyed the two years of fruitless discussion in our little microcosm. I won't waste any more time here.
I suggest the rest of you do likewise so as not to trash minutes better spent reinforcing preconceived stupidities, stupidities you don't really even believe.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The-Daily-Show-Sheehan.wmv
Leave no stone turned as you nobly carry on with this American white male's burden.
We all applaud your courage.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 1:18:26 AM
Oh, comment on Howard Dean...
"Sure you need a plan, but do you have a plan?" Bob S. Of CBS asks Dean after Dean avoids Bob's question about whether the Democrats have a plan.
The response is more blame game.
"You can't expect a particular senator or a particular congressman to have a plan..." says Dean.
Just why not I'd like to know?!! Dean gives a limp answer: Only the president can make a plan.
I don't think so.
Too many examples in history of alternate plans stealing the spotlight. A little fresh air of ideas might be nicer now than...
Broad sweeping statements of disapproval that don't get it.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 8:37:36 AM
1: "The president does not have an adequate plan."
2: (sticks tongue out and puts thumbs in ears) "Well you don't have a plan either...neener neener neener."
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Read on...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942482/
By Eric Alterman...
Yeah well, you know what’s coming next; tens of thousands dead; more than that wounded; hundreds of billions wasted; the hatred of the world; the creation of countless terrorists and torture victims, the destruction of a nation; and the dishonoring of the leadership of the United States of America. All in the service of something that “was never realistic,” an “unreality” that was sold to us by a dishonest, fanatical group of ideologues and their cheerleaders in the so-called liberal media.
What’s perhaps most galling about this is the fact that if you tried to warn your fellow citizens against just this likelihood three years ago when it was still preventable, you were part of some decadent, fifth-columnist coastal elite that hated America, while the chest beating patriots were the ones who drained this nation of its blood and treasure is the service of their own lethal combination of ignorance, arrogance, and ideological obsession. Onward Christian Soldiers.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 7:13:36 AM
@ Flea
Good. Almost on issue for a change.
But sadly you wander off when you say that the media should have seen...what?
That they were being fed information?
Had they realized that the story WASN'T Plame, but that a government insider, indeed the right arm of the president, was FEEDING THEM was the story it could have altered the election.
Hmmm. Leaking. Hmmmm. Points for the counter-intuitiveness of ^.
1. Cooper takes that information and writes a negative article about the White House. Kind of like giving the enemy more ammunition to shoot you with, wasn't it?
2. That Cooper article in Time magazine should have been enough alert to all interested that a so-called "leak war" was in progress. It didn't cause a ripple at the time.
3. In fact, your time sequence is off. Cooper's "War on Wilson" article was July 2003 and the "outrage" by the media over Plame didn't start until a couple of months ago.
Well after the 2004 elections.
Why did the media get onto the "field" (your words), so late? Good question. We can speculate. I don't think you'd like any of the answers.
So, my only comment is that I would prefer that the media get themselves off the field.
In fact, I would prefer that they not "arm-chair quarterback" (your words) either.
Let me give you an example of how they might do something correctly:
Several recent reports, noticed by the New York Times anyway, now vindicate pre-war intelligence about Niger. Not to mention the Butler Report from the Brits. (This is old news now, btw. Links and quotes can be supplied on request.)
The media could have put these reports in perspective against the other stories of "misinformation made up to justify war in Iraq."
Here's a possible headline: "WHITE HOUSE IS VINDICATED ON CONTROVERSIAL 16 WORDS IN STATE OF UNION ADDRESS!"
Sensational enough to sell a few papers and a good way to report the action on the "field."
My theory of media coverage is that perspective, the long-term memory, really counts. Not this goldfish-to-the-other-side-of-the-tank thing.
So, actually, I agree with 44. The lady camping in Texas has a right to her voice. And we can have the good perspective on the whole war. She can supply the starting point.
But it'll never happen.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 8:34:48 AM
LOL! Well, I didn't see Dean put his thumbs in his ears and wiggle his hands, but it was darn close.
Oh, you're referring to the Republicans....
Look! Whooo, whooo! -------->
All in the service of something that “was never realistic,” an “unreality” that was sold to us by a dishonest, fanatical group of ideologues and their cheerleaders in the so-called liberal media
A twist! An interesting twist! Now the "so-called liberal media" were the lead henchmen for this "unreality" of Iraq. I like it!
Mr. Alterman! Mr. Alterman!
In the future, you say:
1. Ten thousands dead.
2. Billions spent.
3. US hated in the world.
4. Creation of more terrorists.
5. More torture victims
6. Dishonored leaders.
Because the war was:
1. Never realistic.
2. An unreality.
But you are:
1. Galled, but full of foresight and wisdom among your fellow citizens.
2. Accused of decadence.
3. Accused of being idiot fifth-columnist media types...wait, didn't he just ridicule his own previous opinion with that one?
Theater! Oh, this is such theater. Get him the onion award. The hanky, the tears, the onion! Quick.
...Before I forget, 44, I want you to put your last song to rap music...from the post way up above. Boom chicka boom...yadda yadda yadda uh huh stuff... ;)
Last edited: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 8:32:59 AM
@JJ
So the White House has been vindicated on Niger....
Was the threat of WMDs the grave and gathering danger or the imminent threat to our national security that it was said to be?
Vice President Cheney flatly asserted in a "Meet the Press" interview that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear arms program:
We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Condoleeza Rice and any number of Republican senators talked about the gathering threat of a mushroom cloud:
We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon, and we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Now, and following all of those clearly false justifications, we've got thousands of Americans dead in Iraq, thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, tens of thousands injured, hundreds of thousands of our troops occupying the country, and hundreds of billions spent...
And you want to talk about vindication?
I knew it was bullshit then. You knew it was bullshit then. Yet you still defend the lies. Why?
Sorry for the absence - actually had to go to work....and had a conjugal visit with Judith. Man - she's hot.
Anyone remember "Carnack" from the "Tonight Show" back in the Carson days?
Well, here's one for you:
"Old news"
Once Bush is out of Crawford and back in DC, Cindy's story slides down the page.
Why you ask? Well.....has anyone of you actually been to Crawford TX? There ain't sh*t to do. The media's bored as hell.
That being said - I do owe the liberals here - specifically 44 - an apology for my post on Sheehan a few days ago. I crossed the line and I apologize.
The next brewing story....and I'm actually surprised no one has put all of the pieces together....is Iran, the IAEA, the EU, and the "new and improved" IED's.
THAT'S a confilct to be concerned about.
Anti-war or anti-Bush? "We report - you decide."
Gad, Chief, what is it with you and Judith?
Actually, she is interesting kind of.
She is hated by the left.
But she is defended as a First Amendment hostage.
Speculators say her anony source is Libby.
Speculators also say she might be the prime mover, the original source of the "out."
I read one of her books on biological weapons. She is no dummy.
And are you talking about Europe finally taking a stand against something?
Last edited: Friday, August 19, 2005 at 2:45:06 PM
@ Crawford
One of funnier news items on it was on CNN.
They foolishly asked a local a leading question about the protesters. He said it was fine for a week or so. But now they needed to get the @#$%@ out of town.
Last edited: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 6:25:35 AM
@ JJ
It would appear so....the thing to watch is what happens in the upcoming German elections.
@Chief
No apology necessary...I'm simply happy one of you guys has finally seen that you were on the wrong side of a topic. I'll consider it an important first step in the eventuality of you and your conservative brethren finally realizing you're wrong about most topics. :)
Last edited: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 1:39:39 PM
@ 44
We get involved with Iran for the wrong reasons and you may have a winner.
@JJ, Chief and Rabban
Would love to hear your takes on this one...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm
Make sure to check out page 6 of the powerpoint.
"I did not have dishonest communications with those people...the americans."
Is this proof of a deception, Mr. President?
"It depends on what the definition of 'is' is..."
You lost me dude - explain this to me like I'm not from New York, California, or France (j/k).....
Seriously - look here first - then look here next .
Now - don't get me wrong - I'm not throwing rocks here....just turning the "Fox News" thing back to you.
That being said - interesting reading....and seriously thanks for posting it. I agree that the 90 days following Saddam's disappearance was the timeframe that bad calls were obviously made - the biggest one that comes to mind was Bremer's dismissal of the Iraqi Army - and I think it became obvious then that our armed forces weren't well suited to an occupation situation...at that time. I would put them up there with the Israeli or Russians currently though.
I am reminded of the various sections inside the various intelligence agencies (we're talking high 5 figure here) - at one point there were more than 3 dozen - with (let's call a spade a spade) bloated hierarchies. A desk for this, a desk for that, a sub-desk of a sub-section for this and that. Basically - a whole helluva lot of people with nothing better to do after the Wall came down. So, they did what workers in the private sector would do - they made busy work and invented (more or less) jobs for themselves. Kinda like being snowed in a cabin - after a while you start counting toothpicks. Anyway....the various personnel/desks/sub-desks/subsections kept right on doing what they were doing during the Cold War - contingency planning. A plan for everything - you name the scenario, they had a plan...and very well likely had the results of it being played out in simulation. (Don't believe it? Check out the particpants on page 5 of the PP. What the hell does the EPA have to do with Iraq??)
Anyway - I am curious if that is in fact what shook out there. I dunno. The October 2001 timeline kinda makes sense, as it was right after 9/11...a period of time when the American public was looking to kick someone's ass in retribution.
An ad'dl personal opinion - Saddam screwed the pooch when he celebrated 9/11 (y'all forgot about that didn't you?). I think it made him a big ass blip on the radar screen, and his following behavior only exacerbated (sp - I'm in a hurry) it.
Last edited: Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 5:02:21 AM
Also- probably one of the best articles about this subject to date (at least that I have seen)....from a liberal newsweekly as well.
From the same print issue:
"That's my job. I'm a newsman. That's what I try to do, is make news. And you try to avoid news. That's your job."
CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, to former president Bill Clinton. Clinton said Blitzer tried to get him to make news by saying the Iraq war was a mistake.
"Objective mainstream media my ass." PTT member "Chief" in response to liberal assertations that the mainstream media is objective.
By the way - Baghdad's so dangerous Blitzer decided to move there...seriously. Said he wanted to "see the country develop."
Last edited: Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 5:01:23 AM
@44
Nice site. Good posts, also. I is perusing...
As for the Flea, he might wish to figure a little more why the media didn't pick up on the story. It certainly knew what it had "stumbled" over. That was clear from Cooper's story in the mag.
Good post, Chief.
Slammed to the wall at work.
Wiki on Soros but fine, fine. He's only one on the list. It is a.edu site. Which means it might but often it's not. When I look at this why do I feel like a squirrel crossing the road?
Last edited: Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 7:53:18 AM
By the way...possibility of a step up looms...
"His critics are starting to figure out that (South Carolina Gov. Mark) Sanford should be on a shortlist of Republican 2008 presidential candidates. He's now halfway through this first term and already has enacted half of his agenda -- including a landmark tort reform bill. The freewheeling Mr. Sanford is especially popular with the GOP's libertarian wing for his consistent stances in support of Social Security private accounts, school vouchers and trade with Cuba and his opposition to corporate welfare .
"Elected to Congress in the Newt Gingrich 1994 tidal wave, he honored his own personal term limit by stepping down after six years. As governor, he's issued more than 100 vetoes against legislative spending, once even bringing two squealing pigs to the State Capitol to emphasize his disdain for pork barrel."
- Brendan Miniter, Political Diary, 8/16/05
Keep an eye on this guy - I worked on his campaign last year and he is the real deal.
I don't think anyone's gonna camp out near his house, though - mosquitos are tough this time of year.
;)
^Drinking the Kool-Aid.
Last edited: Saturday, August 20, 2005 at 8:01:19 AM
Just finished reading the Newsweek article Chief. It's great that this guy might truly feel sorry and is able to express genuine compassion.
I wonder if he thinks about the lies when he stares at the ceiling at night?
I wonder if he hates most when grieving spouses and children ask him about the way this war was sold to their dead loved ones?
I wonder if he has shed a tear about the innocent Iraqis?
I wonder if Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz ever hugged the the 10 year-old daughter of a dead soldier?
I hope so.
Oh by the way, Gore won...
August 22, 2005
Don't Prettify Our History
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The 2000 election is still an open sore on the body politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to my mention last week of what would have happened with a full statewide manual recount of Florida.
This reaction seems to confuse three questions. One is what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't intervened; the answer is that unless the judge overseeing the recount had revised his order (which is a possibility), George W. Bush would still have been declared the winner.
The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin.
The third is what would have happened if the intentions of the voters hadn't been frustrated by butterfly ballots, felon purges and more; the answer is that Mr. Gore would have won by a much larger margin.
About the evidence regarding a manual recount: in April 2001 a media consortium led by The Miami Herald assessed how various recounts of "undervotes," which did not register at all, would have affected the outcome. Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore. The third involved a standard that would have discarded some ballots on which the intended vote was clear. Since Florida law seemed to require counting such ballots, this standard almost certainly wouldn't have been used in a statewide recount.
The Herald group later did an analysis of "overvotes," in which more than one choice was recorded, but this wasn't a true recount, because some of it was based on computer records rather than the ballots themselves.
In November 2001 a larger consortium, which included The New York Times, produced more definitive results that allowed assessment of nine hypothetical recounts. (You can see the results at www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl - under articles.) The three recounts that had been most widely discussed during the battle of Florida, including the partial recount requested by the Gore campaign and two interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court order, would have given the vote to Mr. Bush.
But the six hypothetical manual recounts that would have covered the whole state - including both loose and strict standards - would have given the election to Mr. Gore. And other evidence makes it clear that many intended votes for Mr. Gore were frustrated.
So why do so many people believe the Bush win was rock solid?
One answer is that many editorials and op-ed articles have claimed that no possible recount would have changed the outcome. Let's be charitable and assume that those who write such things are victims of the echo chamber, and believe that what everyone they talk to says must be true.
The other answer is that many though not all reports of the results of the ballot reviews conveyed a false impression about what those reviews said. A few reports got the facts wrong, but for the most part they simply stressed the likelihood - in some cases presented as a certainty - that Mr. Bush would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't intervened. But even if a proper recount wasn't in the cards given the political realities, that says nothing about what such a recount would have found.
The tone of these reports may have been influenced by the timing: the second consortium's report came out just two months after 9/11. The country wanted very badly to believe in its leadership. Nobody wanted to write stories suggesting that the wrong man was sitting in the White House.
More broadly, the story of the 2000 election remains deeply disturbing - not just the fact that a man the voters tried to reject ended up as president, but the ugliness of the fight itself. There was an understandable urge to put the story behind us.
But we aren't doing the country a favor when we present recent history in a way that makes our system look better than it is. Sometimes the public needs to hear unpleasant truths, even if those truths make them feel worse about their country.
Not to be coy: election 2000 may be receding into the past, but the Iraq war isn't. As the truth about the origins of that war comes out, there may be a temptation, once again, to prettify the story. The American people deserve better.
LOL - we've re-fought Vietnam and WWII on here - why not a re-do of the 2K elections?
On a more serious note:
@ 44
I wonder if he hates most when grieving spouses and children ask him about the way this war was sold to their dead loved ones?
I am by no means questioning what you feel - however, I am curious as to the notion that our armed forces....and more specifically the men on the ground....were sold anything. It's an all-volunteer army ------ and if someone REALLY didn't want to deploy to Iraq, or even the M/E theater for that matter, there are many ways to honorably accomplish that and remain in the service.
That being said - I am surprised that no one has mentioned this.
As far as this question:
I wonder if he has shed a tear about the innocent Iraqis?
Are you referring to all of them, or just the ones that have perished since Saddam's downfall?
@ The National Security Archive that 44 recommended.
I am a big fan of FOIA documents. So I went there all wired to see some behind the curtains, inner workings of the big federal government.
I just got a ho-hum over the released documents (not the website). The website seemed slightly snide.
My biggest reaction to the Iraq document was: WE PAY PEOPLE TO DO THESE THINGS! I want a refund. On my next tax return. Mark the check box for "Refund to protest mindless bureaucratic fumbling."
Specifically about page 6 on the power point, it was typical stuff.
Wasn't Saddam long been considered a bad boy? Hadn't we almost stepped into Iraq during the first Gulf War? Weren't sanctions already in place against him? Didn't everyone in the region and world want a region without his brutality? Except maybe his creditors, Germany, Russia, and France.
I suspect this kind of verbal daydreaming and what-iffing happens a lot in the preparation-planning and war-gaming. Typical stuff. Just read the State Department's mission statement.
Footnote on Iraq and its constitution: How many years did it take for the US constitution to be written? What is the deal with Quebec and Canada? Why does Israel not have a constitution after 50 years? How is Iraq not like Vietnam?
Last edited: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 10:06:43 AM
Leave, 44. You're wasting your time. The deaf can not hear anymore than the blind can see.
Last edited: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 10:42:53 AM
What you say Tally?
What part is opaque.
Gee, I wouldnt bring politics in PTT, yall are making enemies. If yall want to talk about it, talk about it peace! I dont want to go one way in PTT or TT because of your disagrements in politics!
Cloud
This is not about "Shut the Hell Up" Cloud. Or any such wall poster or viewpoint.
Whether it's Tally's preference, or anyone else's, or not.
Facts, inferences, opinions.
The last one will get you in trouble. The middle one will sometimes. The first one is never a problem.
Last edited: Friday, August 26, 2005 at 7:49:00 AM
What the left should be saying right now:
1. Iraq: "We are interested in prosecuting the war with good management. Therefore, we want an accounting of the resources that being put into the war."
2. Iraq: "We want more information about the insurgency! Where are the car bombers coming from? Identify the threats to peace there."
Swap WMD for these. They might get results.
Last edited: Friday, August 26, 2005 at 7:59:39 AM
Chief,
I suggest that we go on a diet. Never eat again!
No more cookouts. No more indoor-outdoor finger-food buffets with a conservative motif. No more BBQ's.
They won't eat it, so we just don't serve it!
@ The Krugman column of 8/22 that is quoted above by what'shisname. It is causing some interesting fallout.
First, Krugman corrects himself at the bottom of an 8/26 column:
Correction:
I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.
Interesting to note that the editors at NYT had some input into the correction. IOW, they made Krugman correct himself.
As some bloggers note, among the worst sins of the original column is the one where he quotes an April 2001 study. This study predates better studies that say this. Other fumbling is also pointed out by bloggers.
Who is hiding their eyes, we wonders. *Gollum*
Last edited: Saturday, August 27, 2005 at 8:55:42 AM
@ JJ
I agree. I feel like we're running a tailor shop at a nudist colony.
Not that any of it matters really. We all know that we are who we are and aren't going to change out views due to a forum posting on a website devoted to a game about cartoon tanks.
I started this thread in response to the "Thanks Republicans" and "Swiftvets...." threads. I have really enjoyed exchanging views with the participants in these forums.
I will continue to post here...if for no other reason than to make sure the liberals (who, although they don't post in here anymore, still view it) stay connected to the reality that America's political conscience is shifting to the right on a daily basis. The media's ability to "spin left" continues to decline thanks to the general public's ability to see thru the BS - the Sheehan story is a recent example.
I have been busy as hell lately and unable to post - but I am quite honestly amazed that her "ramblings" of late haven't been mentioned on here. I suppose the word "Chief was right" aren't in SOME people's vocabularies..... :)
Just kidding.
Seriously -------- WTF is up with this lady?
Also - has anyone seen that guy that used to head up Air America? You know - the one that stole all the money from the United Way in order to pay radio stations to run Air America?
Later all - happy Saturday.
stop lying.
Key?
Pardon my rudeness, I cannot abide useless people.
Good question. I am trying to figure out what happened in the '04 elections when the Conservatives increased their majority in both houses of Congress, increased the number of state houses (Governorships) and....oh yeah, you know...won this tawdry little event known as the Presidential Elections. For some reason this event isn't reflected in the above graph.....I reckon it must be destined for the history books.
No, I think a lie would be something like "Judith Miller is in still in prison (on August 30, 2005) because she is defending Karl Rove" or maybe "Cindy Sheehan is camped out in Texas because she is a grieving mother and has no political agenda." Those would be lies.
Playing the "Putting words in mouth" game:
"America is better off today in the eyes of anyone outside the military/petroleum industry." That is also a lie.
Graphs don't come with keys. Maps do. Read.
Playing the "objective media" game - http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/
I tried to read some of the articles....but the one labeled "Not One of the Latest Bush Generation Eligible for Military Service Has Joined America's Armed Forces to Die for George's "Noble Cause" and Make the "Supreme Sacrifice of Patriotism." The Bushes Let the Poor, Middle Class and Rural Kids do the Dying for Them. Kids Like Casey Sheehan. They Always Have. SIGN THIS BUZZFLASH PETITION NOW: EITHER THE BUSH KIDS "SACRIFICE" TO FIGHT FOR GEORGE'S "NOBLE CAUSE," OR BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW", which contains a petition demanding that "the Bush kids" (seemingly down to 2nd and 3rd cousins) be drafted into the military, seems to ignore the fact that we have an all-volunteer military.
It also reminds me of the "Petition to ban....." threads of PTT past. These threads seem to me to basically be "cyber-tantrums" thrown by "kids" who aren't getting their way in non-cyber reality.
It's also more than humorous.....while the "Big Three" networks are considering trashing their "nightly news" broadcasts and planning overhauls at their "all news" spin-offs (MSNBC comes to mind....cancelling CNBC is one example), Fox News is enjoying all time record ratings. Certain print media readership is down as well - pretty much across the board, with the exception of a few such as the WSJ and Washington Times.
Apparently most folks are "pulling the plug" out the back of their heads.
On a final note - "I hear you bro!"
A word on Cindy Sheehan thing.
There are a large number of folks out there who aren't really following her protest.
Boredom? Disagreement with her? Nope. Those who aren't extreme left or extreme right aren't touching Sheehan because of the media's coverage.
The media has burnt their credibility down to a serious level. The Rove/Plame/Wilson scandal has pushed things to the point that no one takes the mainstream media too seriously anymore.
One of the interesting things about the numbers of smart bloggers now is how they have scrutinized all the bits and pieces of this. To the point that the New York Times even has had to explain how they monitor the accuracy of their stories. (But that's another story, thanks to columnist Paul Krugman.)
It's almost worse now than the CBS/60 Minutes memo fiasco. The news/politico junkies are ignoring Sheehan. Also, the typical viewers who don't follow news consistently aren't watching it, I think.
The fallout from Rove/Plame/Wilson is not about Rove, who did make a blunder but of minor proportions. The damaging fallout is how it's been revealed now that the reputable media outlets swallowed everything Wilson said about his Niger trip and WMD.
Wilson makes a trip to Niger in February 2002. He reports on it in March 2002. In May 2003, he begins telling how uranium deals were not made, how documents were false, and how he warned the CIA and White House.
He did not warn the White House because his report got only minor attention. He did not know about documents in March 2002 because they did not get into CIA's hands until October 2002, @ six months later. But this did not stop the traditional media's trumpets from blowing, using him as a source.
The peculiar thing is that I -- and I am assuming other conservatives -- think the WMD thing was pitiful intelligence.
Additionally, about the traditional media, I had trusted their ability to be more accurately critical of politicians than I trust Fox to be critical of politicians.
Too bad on Sheehan. There are a lot of good points to cover from it.
The backlash is causing some waves. Like this in the Tampa Trib . From a board member of an editor's association.
Speaking of which, Chief. Maybe it's time to score the party in power on its Compassionate Conservativism, now that it's down to the last several years before Hillary threatens on the horizon.
Last edited: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 at 9:46:25 AM
I think Hillary is less of a political threat than she is being made out to be. She really should have run in '04 - was probably her best chance to win.
As far as how the Republicans currently rate - I am by no means void of complaints. I probably need to take some time to compose a coherent list.......
Real quick:
The Nat'l Guard in 2003/2004 as described by Democrats: a haven for draft dodgers such as George Bush.
As described today in various talking head shows in August 2005: valued rescuers who are needed domestically (e.g. The Gulf Coast) instead of being deployed in Iraq.
LOL......"Oh my Lord.....the hypocrisy!!!!"
Nice agitprop there, Chief. Way to blur time and place.
This is another reason why we dislike you.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Special-Report-Hume-Barnes-Crackpot-Katrina.wmv
Dont believe everything you read.
^I don't belive you.
...because I read that you told me not to believe everything that..... HEY!!
:S
Last edited: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at 7:42:58 PM
I am curious as to the notion that our armed forces....and more specifically the men on the ground....were sold anything. It's an all-volunteer army
Anybody watch any of the Army ads that precede teaser clips of upcoming videogames over at Gamespot? You know the ones that make combat look like a little jaunt played mostly with a controller in your hand and a video screen in front of you.
Many of these 'volunteers' are sold in exactly the same way the american public was sold on the rationale for war in Iraq -- with twisted facts, exagerations and misinformation.
As Army struggles to meet recruiting goals, ads target skeptical parents
Violence in Iraq makes military a hard sell
By Mark Mazzetti
Los Angeles Times
August 28, 2005
WASHINGTON - Success in advertising usually means getting people to part with their hard-earned cash. Ray DeThorne's success is measured by how many people he can persuade to let go of their sons and daughters.
As brand manager for the Army's advertising account at Leo Burnett Inc., a Chicago ad agency, DeThorne's job is to sell the Army. These days, it's a difficult product to sell.
In marketing terms, the Army is a troubled brand. The daily images of violence from Iraq are scaring away potential recruits.
Goals not met
The Army does not expect to meet any of its 2005 recruiting goals for the active, Reserve and National Guard ranks, and Army officials have said the gap is likely to be greater next year.
This year, DeThorne will spend more than $200 million of the Army's money - the U.S. Government's largest advertising contract - to try to reverse that trend and sell the nation on the benefits of military service.
It is a job that gets more and more difficult as Americans read about the latest roadside bomb or insurgent ambush killing another handful of U.S. Solders.
"This is the most complicated, multilayered thing I have ever worked on," said DeThorne, who slips in and out of marketing jargon when discussing the challenge. "Every day you pick up the paper and there is a story reframing the product you are trying to sell."
The problem for DeThorne and the Army goes deeper than the headlines from Iraq. As the percentage of adult Americans with military experience plummets - about 11 percent today, down from 20 percent in 1970 - so does the likelihood that the young people sought by the Army are being raised by parents who didn't serve in the armed forces.
Today's parents are likely to be more skeptical of military life than were their parents or grandparents, Army market research says.
It is the parents - the Pentagon calls them influencers - who are proving the most formidable obstacle to the Army's ability to meet its recruiting goals.
The problem is compounded in the middle of a protracted war, with parents fearful that their child's decision to join the Army means he or she is bound to end up in Iraq.
"It's very different from folks who grew up with communism and the Red Menace," said DeThorne, 46, who was raised in a military family but has not served in the armed forces.
Leo Burnett's latest advertising campaign avoids mentioning the war in Iraq.
In the ads, which began airing in April, there are no mentions of combat, no shots of tanks driving through the desert and no mention of an increasingly unpopular war.
More pragmatic than patriotic, the ads consist of conversations between parents and their children. The vignettes emphasize how the Army can pay for college, provide career training and turn a listless youth into a focused, responsible citizen.
Col. Thomas Nickerson, who heads the Army's strategic marketing effort and approves all of the Army's advertising, said the Leo Burnett advertisements were designed to show parents that the Army was about more than combat.
"The single message we want to communicate in our advertising is that the Army will help someone be successful at whatever they have set as a goal for their lives," Nickerson said.
Each of the advertisements carries the tagline: "Help them find their strength"
Nice post 44. I agree that there should be full disclosure to those enlisting in the service. Thankfully, the days of recruiters promising exotic locales and cush jobs (anyone remember the movie "Private Benjamin"?) are long gone.
@ Tally
You got me on the "agitprop" word there dude - had to Google it.
As far as Barnes is concerned...y'all have your Michael Moore's and apparently we have our Barnes'....and a couple of Robertsons' as well. Taking comments from the fringe....of either party....and representing them as indicative of the party's ideaology as a whole is intellectually dishonest.
We all know the kooks are on the fringe....I personallytend to ignore them - all of them - unless the nat'l media points the spotlight on them for some reason. This usually only happens on slow news days though.
Speaking of distilling the facts into a brew of high alcoholic content that causes pink elephant flights of fancy...ah, anyway, well said, Chief.
Do we put politicians in control for their terms and then unquestioningly trust them for four years? NEVER!
Again, well said, Chief.
Is America bipolar red and blue?
Last edited: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 at 10:14:29 AM
Page : 1 . . . . . 12 : 13 : <14> : 15 : 16 . . . . . 23
: :
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?