Liberal Generals in Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

About sums it up…

Michelle Malkin:
It’s not just Newsweek, it’s big media
By MICHELLE MALKIN

IF YOU WANT to hear an earful, ask an American soldier how he feels about our news media. You will invariably hear an outpouring of dismay and outrage over antagonistic and reckless reporting.

I have stacks of letters and e-mails from soldiers and their families sharing those frustrations. During the Vietnam War, those sentiments would get packed away ? private hurts to be silently borne for decades.

But today the Internet has allowed soldiers on the front to disseminate their views ? breaking through the media’s entrenched, anti-military bias ? in unprecedented ways. In the wake of Newsweek’s publication of its unsourced, mayhem-inducing and now-retracted item about Koran desecration by U.S. military interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, a sergeant in Saudi Arabia immediately responded on a blog called The Anchoress (theanchoressonline.com).

I have placed my life and the life of my fellow soldiers in danger in order to achieve a measure of the freedoms we enjoy at home for the Iraqi and Afghani people. As soldiers, we all understand that we may be asked to participate in wars (actions) that we (or our countrymen) don’t agree with. The irresponsible journalism being practiced by organizations such as Newsweek, however, (is) just inexcusable. At this point, because of their actions and failure to follow up on a claim of that magnitude, they’ve set the process back in Afghanistan immensely . . .

I don’t regret serving my country, not one bit, but to have everything I’m doing here undermined by irresponsible journalists leaves me disgusted and disappointed.

Military bloggers across the Web this week echoed the sergeant’s disgust with American journalism. And it’s not just Newsweek.

It’s the New York Times and CBS News and the overkill over abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. It’s the Boston Globe publishing porn photos passed off by an anti-war city councilor as proof that American GIs were raping Iraqi women.

It’s the constant editorial drumbeat of “quagmire, quagmire, quagmire.”

It’s the mainstream media’s bogus reporting on the military’s failure to stop purported “massive” looting of Iraqi antiquities.

It’s the hyping of stories like the military’s purported failure to stop looting of explosives at al Qa Qaa right before the 2004 Presidential election ? stories that have since dropped off the face of the earth.

It’s the persistent use of euphemisms ? “insurgents,” “hostage-takers,” “activists,” “militants,” “fighters” ? to describe the terrorist head-choppers and suicide bombers trying to kill American soldiers and civilians alike.

It’s the knee-jerk caricature of American generals as intolerant anachronisms.

It’s the portrayal of honest mistakes in battle as premeditated murders.

It’s the propagandistic rumor-mongering spread by sympathizers of Italy’s Giuliana Sgrena and former CNN executive Eason Jordan about American soldiers targeting and/or murdering journalists.

It’s the glorification of military deserters, who bask in the glow of unquestioning ? and largely uncorroborated ? print and broadcast profiles.

And it’s the lesser-known insults, too, such as the fraudulent manipulation of Marine recruits by Harper’s magazine. In March, the liberal publication plastered a photo of seven recruits at Parris Island, S.C., under the headline, “AWOL in America: When Desertion Is the Only Option.”

None of the recruits is a deserter. When some expressed outrage over the deception, the magazine initially shrugged.

“We are decorating pages,” sniffed Giulia Melucci, the magazine’s vice president for public relations, to the St. Petersburg Times.

As Ralph Hansen, associate professor of journalism at West Virginia University and a rare member of academia with his head screwed on straight, observed: “Portraying honorable soldiers as deserters is clearly inappropriate. And I don’t see any way Harper’s could claim that they weren’t portraying the young Marines as deserters. A cover is more than just art. I think that someone had a great idea for a cover illustration and forgot that he or she was dealing with images of real people.”

The members of our military are more than just an expedient means to a titillating magazine cover or juicy scoop or Peabody Award. Too often since the War on Terror was declared, eager Bush-bashing journalists have forgotten that the troops are real people who face real threats and real bloodshed as a consequence of loose lips and keyboards.

It’s not just Newsweek that needs to learn that lesson.

62

Hedo/Cream,

Excellent posts!!!

Thanks.

JeffR

63

From Strategist James Dunnigan. Try and be open minded and consider an opposing viewpoint.

WHO WINS: Measuring Progress in the War on Terror

May 23, 2005: Keeping track of who is winning in the war on terror is complicated by the other ?wars? that have become entangled with the conflict against Islamic terrorism. Party politics in the United States, and ideological, commercial and cultural differences with Europe and other parts of the world have made difficult to agree on what is victory, and what is defeat.

There is a lot of disagreement over Iraq. Taking the war to Iraq was a decisive move, in that it brought the war on terror to the terrorist homeland (the Persian Gulf in particular, and the Middle East in general.) Al Qaeda was forced to declare Iraq a major battleground, and eager terrorists have flocked to Iraq. There, the terrorists have made themselves thoroughly unpopular with most Iraqis, and an increasing number of Moslems outside Iraq. But much of world opinion has decided (for a cluster of ideological, commercial and cultural reasons) that the war in Iraq is illegal and wrong. The United States is pretty much ignoring world opinion, and a lot of Americans who share that opinion (largely liberals and Democrats). Because the left in the United States has decided that the American government has no plan and is without a clue, you cannot even discuss war on terror strategy without getting put down straight away. But there is a strategy, and it is working.

Taking the war to the Islamic heartland wasn?t easy. Most of the world was unwilling to offend Saudi Arabia, the world?s largest oil producer, with accusations that Arabia was the source of most of the increasingly lethal Islamic terrorism. But Iraq provided a better target, because the Baath Party in Iraq had made itself a pariah state because of unprovoked attacks on neighbors Iran and Kuwait. Everyone believed that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons, and was trying to get nukes. While many now deny this was the case, anyone can check the news stories before 2003 to see the near unanimous agreement that Iraq was not in compliance with UN demands to come clean about its ?weapons of mass destruction.?

Iraq brought Islamic terrorism to the Islamic heartland, and the locals don?t like it. Before 2003, Islamic terrorism was popular in this part of the world. Expatriates in Saudi Arabia were unnerved by how many Saudis seemed happy and pleased about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many Moslems had convinced themselves that their problems with local tyrants and poor economic performance were caused by external forces. This, ?it?s not my fault? attitude has been a problem for centuries. A serious problem as can be seen by the lack of economic progress, despite trillions of dollars in oil sales and decades of development efforts. Even the Turks, who ruled the Middle East for centuries, despaired of ever curing the Arabs of their delusions, and self-destructive habits.

That attitude was slowly changing before the September 11, 2001, Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. But once Islamic terrorists began killing Iraqis and Saudis on a large scale, the ?maybe it?s our problem and we should fix it? school of thought became a lot more popular. Unfortunately, because most mass media have a vested interest in disaster and defeat, this aspect of the war on terror is little discussed. Good news is not welcome.

No matter, the war goes on, and increasingly it?s being fought, and run, by SOCOM (the U.S. Special Operations Command.) This organization has more experts in the language and cultures of Islamic countries than the rest of the United States government combined. This irritates the State Department, and a lot of other organizations both foreign and domestic. But that?s not considered a major problem by SOCOM.

SOCOM has learned a lot about what works, and to what degree, in Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries where it is operating. One major finding is that it will be easier to stop, or greatly diminish, Islamic terrorism, than it will be to fix the social and economic problems in Moslem nations. The biggest weakness of Islamic terrorists is their intolerance. Islamic terrorists will freely kill fellow Moslems, and not just those who are, or appear to be, ?collaborating? with the enemy. Islamic terrorists had tried to avoid this sort of thing, as they realize their source of money and new recruits comes mainly from Moslem nations. But the Islamic radical movement is on a Mission from God, and there is a competition to see who is the more terrible terrorist. Killing Moslems is not considered a problem to many of the Islamic terrorists. Thus, as Islamic nations get a dose of Islamic terrorism, attitudes shift. The result is a larger proportion of the terrorist recruits and money support are now coming from Islamic communities in Europe, where local laws and customs make it easy for transplanted Moslem communities to survive, safe from the effects of Islamic terrorism. It?s easier for a Moslem to support Islamic terrorism as a spectator, rather than as a victim.

Nearly all Islamic nations are willing to fight Islamic terrorists, although most are less eager to work on the underlying problems (mostly political and economic) that created Islamic radicalism in the first place. But the United States has managed to get everyone, especially the worldwide mass media, to agree that democracy and clean government in Moslem countries is a good thing. This in itself is a major victory. But reversing thousands of years of bad habits (especially tolerance for despotism and corruption) won?t happen quickly. However, because of the growing availability of international media, most Moslems are at least aware that there are better ways to run a country, and an economy. This provides an opening for reform.

SOCOM, and other elements of the Department of Defense, have developed some detailed methods for measuring progress in the war on terror. Unfortunately, these metrics are too complex for snappy headlines, and too dependent on sensitive sources for wide distribution. But even without access to all that, you can see the strategy, and the progress. As was said, early and often after September 11, 2001, it?s going to be a long war.

64

hedo, excellent post.

That confirms what I believed.

The war in Iraq is a bold move and it won’t end soon.

History will judge whether it is a success or failure.

All of our discussion, while enjoyable, is mental masturbation.

65

[quote]hedo wrote:
From Strategist James Dunnigan. Try and be open minded and consider an opposing viewpoint.

WHO WINS: Measuring Progress in the War on Terror

May 23, 2005: Keeping track of who is winning in the war on terror is complicated by the other ?wars? that have become entangled with the conflict against Islamic terrorism. Party politics in the United States, and ideological, commercial and cultural differences with Europe and other parts of the world have made difficult to agree on what is victory, and what is defeat.

There is a lot of disagreement over Iraq. Taking the war to Iraq was a decisive move, in that it brought the war on terror to the terrorist homeland (the Persian Gulf in particular, and the Middle East in general.) Al Qaeda was forced to declare Iraq a major battleground, and eager terrorists have flocked to Iraq. There, the terrorists have made themselves thoroughly unpopular with most Iraqis, and an increasing number of Moslems outside Iraq. But much of world opinion has decided (for a cluster of ideological, commercial and cultural reasons) that the war in Iraq is illegal and wrong. The United States is pretty much ignoring world opinion, and a lot of Americans who share that opinion (largely liberals and Democrats). Because the left in the United States has decided that the American government has no plan and is without a clue, you cannot even discuss war on terror strategy without getting put down straight away. But there is a strategy, and it is working.

Taking the war to the Islamic heartland wasn?t easy. Most of the world was unwilling to offend Saudi Arabia, the world?s largest oil producer, with accusations that Arabia was the source of most of the increasingly lethal Islamic terrorism. But Iraq provided a better target, because the Baath Party in Iraq had made itself a pariah state because of unprovoked attacks on neighbors Iran and Kuwait. Everyone believed that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons, and was trying to get nukes. While many now deny this was the case, anyone can check the news stories before 2003 to see the near unanimous agreement that Iraq was not in compliance with UN demands to come clean about its ?weapons of mass destruction.?

Iraq brought Islamic terrorism to the Islamic heartland, and the locals don?t like it. Before 2003, Islamic terrorism was popular in this part of the world. Expatriates in Saudi Arabia were unnerved by how many Saudis seemed happy and pleased about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many Moslems had convinced themselves that their problems with local tyrants and poor economic performance were caused by external forces. This, ?it?s not my fault? attitude has been a problem for centuries. A serious problem as can be seen by the lack of economic progress, despite trillions of dollars in oil sales and decades of development efforts. Even the Turks, who ruled the Middle East for centuries, despaired of ever curing the Arabs of their delusions, and self-destructive habits.

That attitude was slowly changing before the September 11, 2001, Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. But once Islamic terrorists began killing Iraqis and Saudis on a large scale, the ?maybe it?s our problem and we should fix it? school of thought became a lot more popular. Unfortunately, because most mass media have a vested interest in disaster and defeat, this aspect of the war on terror is little discussed. Good news is not welcome.

No matter, the war goes on, and increasingly it?s being fought, and run, by SOCOM (the U.S. Special Operations Command.) This organization has more experts in the language and cultures of Islamic countries than the rest of the United States government combined. This irritates the State Department, and a lot of other organizations both foreign and domestic. But that?s not considered a major problem by SOCOM.

SOCOM has learned a lot about what works, and to what degree, in Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries where it is operating. One major finding is that it will be easier to stop, or greatly diminish, Islamic terrorism, than it will be to fix the social and economic problems in Moslem nations. The biggest weakness of Islamic terrorists is their intolerance. Islamic terrorists will freely kill fellow Moslems, and not just those who are, or appear to be, ?collaborating? with the enemy. Islamic terrorists had tried to avoid this sort of thing, as they realize their source of money and new recruits comes mainly from Moslem nations. But the Islamic radical movement is on a Mission from God, and there is a competition to see who is the more terrible terrorist. Killing Moslems is not considered a problem to many of the Islamic terrorists. Thus, as Islamic nations get a dose of Islamic terrorism, attitudes shift. The result is a larger proportion of the terrorist recruits and money support are now coming from Islamic communities in Europe, where local laws and customs make it easy for transplanted Moslem communities to survive, safe from the effects of Islamic terrorism. It?s easier for a Moslem to support Islamic terrorism as a spectator, rather than as a victim.

Nearly all Islamic nations are willing to fight Islamic terrorists, although most are less eager to work on the underlying problems (mostly political and economic) that created Islamic radicalism in the first place. But the United States has managed to get everyone, especially the worldwide mass media, to agree that democracy and clean government in Moslem countries is a good thing. This in itself is a major victory. But reversing thousands of years of bad habits (especially tolerance for despotism and corruption) won?t happen quickly. However, because of the growing availability of international media, most Moslems are at least aware that there are better ways to run a country, and an economy. This provides an opening for reform.

SOCOM, and other elements of the Department of Defense, have developed some detailed methods for measuring progress in the war on terror. Unfortunately, these metrics are too complex for snappy headlines, and too dependent on sensitive sources for wide distribution. But even without access to all that, you can see the strategy, and the progress. As was said, early and often after September 11, 2001, it?s going to be a long war.
[/quote]

I’m a liberal and against the war, as some of you know. I enjoyed this article. It (slightly) deepened my insight into Muslim culture and thinking. But it doesn’t in any way convince me that the war is right, or necessary. In fact, the opposite. Why are we interfering in this part of the world? This culture, one in which the slaughter of innocents is accepted, is fucked. Leave them to their fucked up culture. Let them fight amongst themselves. Obviously not all muslims fall into this category. But, as a whole, the choice of adjective fits.

Why are Westerners dying over there? To help them? They aren’t grateful. They don’t want us there.

There is more protest in that part of the world over a picture of Saddam in his underpants than there ever was against his tyranny. You never hear any howls of indignation from the world’s muslims over how insurgents are targeting innocent Iraqis, but you do over fake stories about the Quran being put in a toilet. This gives you an insight into the mentality of the people of that region.

Responding to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan was a good call. Iraq? A shocking waste of money and lives. It’s unwanted, it creates more hatred, and the thing is, it doesn’t matter how good America’s intentions are, it is seen as imperialism. And as the article points out, intentionally or not, invading Iraq but not taking on Saudi Arabia, or Syria, is hypocritical.

Furthermore, any mistake will be pounced upon, for example Abu Ghraib, and in the minds of the generally biased Arab nations, this completely overshadows any moves towards democracy, or freedom, whatever. I can see no way in which the mentality of the region can be changed by outside action. Pull out, be vigilant and defend our borders.

66

deanosumo, I agree. What I hate more than anything is how casual we seem to be with the lives of our own soldiers. More thought should have been put into this before it was started.

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:
deanosumo, I agree. What I hate more than anything is how casual we seem to be with the lives of our own soldiers. More thought should have been put into this before it was started. [/quote]

1600 and counting, and what for?

68

Dean,

You do know that terrorism crosses borders.

Isolationism has never worked for the United States.

Deterrance does.

Anyway, you know where I stand.

JeffR

69

Deanosumo,

Saying you are liberal and against the war is redundant, just kidding. Anyway, I would point out that we are in the region/interfering because that region (the Persian Gulf) is considered part of the vital interest of the US. I know it is not highly publicized but we have been there for a long time, I have been deploying to that area since 1989.

You are right that some of the people aren’t grateful for what we are doing but some are. In my opinion the people that are grateful do wants us there but only for as long as it takes to stabilize things and not a second more. Which I am sure all the guys on the ground are in complete agreement with.

Part of the reason you didn’t hear alot of protest about Saddam’s tyranny is three-fold. One, he controlled the media. Two, at the sign of any protest he would attack. Three, CNN’s Chief News Executive Eason Jordan witholding information about the regime.

As far as creating more hatred in the region, I am not saying it can’t happen, but I find it hard to believe they could hate us anymore than they already do. And we don’t need to invade Saudi Arabia, it is about to collapse on itself. The oil family’s reign is coming to an end and they know it. Syria, I personally feel is getting the message. I think them pulling out of Lebannon shows Assad is paying attention to what is going on.

You are also right that any mistake will be pounced upon, although it does not help when a news organization like the NY Times runs the same story on the front page 40 plus times. If there is that much new information coming out then by all means run it, but if not a little restraint would be nice.

70

[quote]CDM wrote:
As far as creating more hatred in the region, I am not saying it can’t happen, but I find it hard to believe they could hate us anymore than they already do. And we don’t need to invade Saudi Arabia, it is about to collapse on itself. The oil family’s reign is coming to an end and they know it. Syria, I personally feel is getting the message. I think them pulling out of Lebannon shows Assad is paying attention to what is going on.
[/quote]

Deterrance.

Well put.

JeffR

71

CDM, I appreciate your post. Good post.

I know the US has been in the Middle East for a long time. Too long, and usually for the wrong reasons, often to protect financial interests (oil of course). We have also meddled in regime changes from the Shah to the mujahadeen. This is part of the reason they hate us!

You say some people are grateful, but you also say that it is basically impossible for them to hate us more than they already do.

My position is probably different from most of those on the left, in that I wish to state that they don’t deserve our help. And the only change they will appreciate, and deserve, has to come from within. Not from behind your M-16.

If you have to go back there, stay safe.

72

Why is it not OK to have a US presence in the Mid East, yet it is perfectly acceptable to have Mid Easterners live in the US?

The only reason the US has a military presence is to protect its interests and citizens. We have a right to free trade and commerce without piracy and terrorism.

It is NOT the US fault they are fucked up! They have been fucked up since before the US came into existence.

Learn some history!

73

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Find the place where BB said the NYT cannot be trusted. I think you are taking some pretty big liberties with paraphrasing.

On 10/29/04, BostonBarrister wrote:
BookerT:

This study claims to show the New York Times has had a liberal bias back to 1946 – I haven’t read the whole thing, but the abstract looks interesting:

Riccardo Puglisi of the London School of Ecnomics analyzing New York Times issue coverage from 1946-1994.

He then went on to post the abstract. He then wrote right after that on the same day and thread:
I want to see some attempted rebuttals. I imagine they will try to nitpick one or two items, but the most telling thing to me is the Evan Thomas stuff.

It’s not a conspiracy in the media – it’s merely the result of having reporters and editors who are 90% liberal in charge of picking stories, headlines, article placements, etc. Each follows individual preference, and there aren’t enough conservatives there to argue with them or cause them to question those individual judgments.

On 10/28/04, BostonBarrister wrote:

After the caterwauling that occurred concerning “media trying to influence elections” that echoed around the aborted decision of the owner of a group of television stations that are major network affiliates to air a John Kerry “documentary” (haven’t seen it, but I’m guessing that it approached Michael Moore in terms of having a “point of view”), I wonder why the former caterwaulers are now silent concerning the plan of the NYT and CBS to air this hit piece, ostensibly news but obviously not well researched, as a “blowback” piece 36 hours before the start of the election?

I’m troubled by the timing aspect, because the normal cure for bad speech, which is good speech, would not have had the chance to operate in such a short time frame. The only reason the NYT went ahead and aired the story was that it was starrting to come out on the internet – otherwise, the plan was for both to release the story this coming Sunday.

Generally, I think this sort of thing is regrettable, but must be allowed under Free Speech and Freedom of the Press under the 1st Amendment. However, the impulse behind that blight on the 1st Amendment, Campaign Finance Reform, and the various muzzlings of speech that occur around elections, suggest that some people think otherwise.

Where is the indignation from all of you who could not believe a media outlet would attempt to “affect an election”?

BTW, on a related note, here’s the abstract to an interesting new study purporting to show bias at the NYT over the years:

He then went on to post the abstract. Now, what is someone to take from posts like this? The last quote was from a thread he started entitled “NYT and CBS Bias”. Well, gee, if there is such a bias, am I to assume that the info CAN be trusted? If the info CAN be trusted then why be concerned about a bias? Ahh, RainJack, you now say that I am taking some pretty big liberties with paraphrasing. How can that be when there are posts like what I just quoted? What else am I to assume other than that they can not be trusted?

Your challenge to me has been met. Now what? He had to specifically say “They can not be trusted”? Isn’t that what is implied or at least that their info is regularly liberally biased? Now, prove me wrong…but remember, if you do, then you admit that they CAN be trusted which means you all crying about a liberal bias means nothing at all in terms of news.

To me, it seems that many of you want to hide any news that doesn’t put the current administration in the greatest light. I don’t understand that. Why not simply be concerned about THE TRUTH even if if it does mean your party affiliation takes a hit? I posted one article and was immediately given an opposing one by another poster. Is this news tag? Do any of you truly think that everyone over there just loves America when 6,000 people turn out for protests against us? Why ignore that? Isn’t that a part of the picture as well? Joe Weider mentioned mass graves. Why would that be in the news today? Were some more bodies added over the last week?
[/quote]

Prof,

You’re making a whole-to-part logical fallacy in trying to understand what I’m saying. In other words, a characteristic that is applicable to the whole is not necessarily a characteristic of a specific part.

What I said was in general that there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media and at the NYT. I’ve said this many times, in many different ways, with much back-up. In general, this would be how one would mentally filter their stuff.

However, this does not mean that I think any particular story coming from them is wrong or biased (two different things – a story can be factually correct but biased at the same time, or vice versa). The New York Times is perfectly capable of producing correct, unbiased news stories on any subject, but in the aggregate their stories show a liberal bias.

Just like in the discussion on labels, it works on the general level, and it’s good background info, but the story itself needs to be ajudged individually.

74

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Is this the corner we just turned, or did we pass it?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/05/12/opinion/20050513_opchart.html

That is a corner we haven’t turned yet, but we will. The above link provides a month worth of corners we have passed. The big tests are going to be the 15th of August, October and December. Then we will see how far we have really come.

But that’s from the New York Times. I thought that, according to BostonBarrister, they are a biased news organization and, as such, their info can not be trusted. [/quote]

BTW, Prof,

In addition to what I just wrote above, there’s this point. Not to beat a dead horse, but did you notice the chart posted was an item from the Opinion section of the NYT? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually looked at it before commenting…

I don’t need to belabor the distinction between Opinion and News again, do I?

75

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
CDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Is this the corner we just turned, or did we pass it?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/05/12/opinion/20050513_opchart.html

That is a corner we haven’t turned yet, but we will. The above link provides a month worth of corners we have passed. The big tests are going to be the 15th of August, October and December. Then we will see how far we have really come.

But that’s from the New York Times. I thought that, according to BostonBarrister, they are a biased news organization and, as such, their info can not be trusted.

BTW, Prof,

In addition to what I just wrote above, there’s this point. Not to beat a dead horse, but did you notice the chart posted was an item from the Opinion section of the NYT? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually looked at it before commenting…

I don’t need to belabor the distinction between Opinion and News again, do I?[/quote]

No, you don’t, but I rarely…as in never now that I think of it…see you support or simply accept any news that contradicts a seemingly conservative agenda. Correct me if I’m wrong.

76

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No, you don’t, but I rarely…as in never now that I think of it…see you support or simply accept any news that contradicts a seemingly conservative agenda. Correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

I rarely, if ever, support or simply accept anything without adding some critical analysis or going off on my own tangents - or at least finding some other sources of info. That’s the beauty of being a free-thinking individual.

As to how I question/criticize things, I think you’ll generally find my cricisms aimed at spin and interpretation, rather than at facts. For instance, I don’t think you can find anything in which I questioned that Abu Ghraib happened, for instance – though I did say I wanted more confirmation from the notoriously unreliable Sy Hersh for his claims (which has never materialized, BTW).

I think you can find quite a few of my posts that question Republicans and their positions and/or interpretation – just use the search engine. You’ll probably do well to focus on things like Campaign Finance Reform or the 1st Amendment.

But yes, I am generally inclined toward conservative/libertarian positions, and I’ve never claimed to be unbiased. I’m not a newspaper making such claims, and don’t feel constrained as such.

Which is, after all, the point, because if you’ll recall, my whole problem with the NYT and the Mainstream Media is that they claim to be unbiased, while exhibiting clear bias. I never said that all their stories therefore must be assumed wrong until proved right – it’s all a matter of untangling the facts from the spin with which they’re enveloped in the reporting – and in the case of Iraq, in seeing what they’re leaving out (bias by omission, just like in the area of securities law a company can be found to be materially misleading investors and subject to 10-b-5 liability by leaving out information on a topic that it chooses to address).

77

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But yes, I am generally inclined toward conservative/libertarian positions, and I’ve never claimed to be unbiased. I’m not a newspaper making such claims, and don’t feel constrained as such.

Which is, after all, the point, because if you’ll recall, my whole problem with the NYT and the Mainstream Media is that they claim to be unbiased, while exhibiting clear bias. I never said that all their stories therefore must be assumed wrong until proved right – it’s all a matter of untangling the facts from the spin with which they’re enveloped in the reporting – and in the case of Iraq, in seeing what they’re leaving out (bias by omission, just like in the area of securities law a company can be found to be materially misleading investors and subject to 10-b-5 liability by leaving out information on a topic that it chooses to address).[/quote]

I don’t claim to be unbiased either. However, I am very willing to accept info from anywhere and look deeper. My opinion, and notice the word “opinion”, is that you seem to put any opposing views under a microscope, while only viewing those articles that agree with you through aerial photographs.

78

LONDON (AFP) - Washington?s policies of promoting democracy in Iraq and elsewhere look ?increasingly effective?, and even the threat from terrorism abated slightly during 2004, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said in an annual report.

The London-based think-tank noted however that the situation in Iraq was also creating a recruitment effect for terrorist groups, an aspect which remained ?the proverbial elephant in the living room? of US foreign policy.

The report said that the improvement in the overall strategic climate was helped by factors such as the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but it added that US President George W. Bush?s foreign policies also seemed to be bearing fruit.

?Even though the Bush policy was bold, controversial and sometimes divisive, his aggressive global agenda of promoting freedom, and democracy appeared increasingly effective,? the IISS said in its 384-page ?Strategic Survey 2004-05?.

Counter-terrorism efforts over the period had also seen an overall net gain, the report argued, despite the seemingly ?counterproductive? aspects of some of the United States?s self-declared ?war on terror?.

79

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I don’t claim to be unbiased either. However, I am very willing to accept info from anywhere and look deeper. My opinion, and notice the word “opinion”, is that you seem to put any opposing views under a microscope, while only viewing those articles that agree with you through aerial photographs.[/quote]

So you’re telling me I disagree more with things with which I disagree? Shocking…

80

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why is it not OK to have a US presence in the Mid East, yet it is perfectly acceptable to have Mid Easterners live in the US?

The only reason the US has a military presence is to protect its interests and citizens. We have a right to free trade and commerce without piracy and terrorism.

It is NOT the US fault they are fucked up! They have been fucked up since before the US came into existence.

Learn some history![/quote]

Your post is moronic. You compare a people of middle eastern origin living in the US- citizens mostly, or exchange students, or permanent residents waiting for citizenship, working, living normal lives- to the US presence in the Middle East- which is mainly a) armed forces and b) corporations.

So what you are saying is that if it’s okay for people of Middle Eastern extraction to live in the US, it’s okay for the US to send an occupying army over there?

Or did you just not think before you wrote?

That part of the world is fucked. PART of the reason it is fucked is the interference of the US in the past, along with Britain, and Russia, and other countries who have meddled in the region, for their own economic and strategic reasons. The other part is their own savage backwardness.

Which we should leave them to.