Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

If anyone is keeping track, I'd say the last few days have generated all the board mottos we're ever going to need.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Bilmore, I was the one Spanky was addressing. Exactly what is it that I have said that allows you to conclude I'm a Bolshevik or Maoist?

You accuse me of being an absolutist. "There are no bad guys, just undiverse systems." However, it's Spanky and you who are claiming to be the absolutists. You hold your moral compass up like a shield.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Spanky. You don't get to express contempt for me as being a moral relativist once you start arguing that it's okay to kill the Islamists because otherwise they will kill us. That's no moral compass, my friend. That's just another case of "God on our side."

And don't you dare accuse me or any other Jew of being someone who would be satisfied with responding to another Hitler by being "a little more circumspect."

If you have no sense of perspective, at least have a little shame.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Yes, Bilmore, we should. If a political leader doesn't see the fact that we are winning, the correct response for the Administration, and its supporters, is not to callhim a traitor and shout him down. As Dr. Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

As Captain and Gatti have correctly pointed out, the fact that Ty and Dean may not see the light at the end of the tunnel means it is incumbent on Bush and Cheney and YOU to point out where the light is.

That's what a democracy is all about. You remember democracy right? It's the system that allows people to challenge those in power, and to question the leadership. I think that's why our President Bush has said we're in Iraq. I know it's why you have said we're in Iraq.

Shouldn't our givernment be held to the same standards that were asserted as sufficient reason to take Saddam out?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

And when are you going to consider us as having won the war at home? Is there ever going to be room in your politics for expressions of popular will that don't mimic the expression of concentrated power?

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Back up. This was a generalized rant to Spanky that his looking for moral consideration or line-drawing from groups that can defend cultures that drop walls on gays and kill women for being raped as old, noble, defendable, and valid systems was naive, at best.

I think you reversed something here. I said basically the opposite - that such considerations were NOT absolutist, but were, instead, taking NO inconvenient moral position. And, it's a sword, not a shield.

I have no contempt for you, nor did I express any. And, there is no god, so I can't be claiming any divine right here - I do reserve, however, the right to kill those first who seek to kill me. Morality? Nope - just common sense. You must be thinking of someone else.

If and when I ever say such a thing, you should yell at me. Let's wait until that happens, though.

I have perspective, and I've done nothing shameful, unless we have verboten subjects such as "never, ever use jews in analogy." You sort of had to dig deep to come up with that bit of outrage.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Fascinating how the right is trying so desperately to rewrite recent history. About the only issue the administration was willing to discuss at the time was the WMD one. You can go back and pick quotes from here and there to support the idea that other issues were debated, but they were not pursued anywhere near as vigorously by the administration. Colin Powell did not go to the UN with a slide show of rape rooms and receipts showing donations to al Qaeda. Please don't insult the intelligence of those who disagreed with you and the administration then by trying to force the administration's words into their mouths now. Bush sold this war on the basis of WMDs that didn't materialize. You are stuck with that fact.

That said, I agree with those here who say we cannot now leave and we are stuck with cleaning up the mess. Murtha turned up the heat on the debate, but nobody with any sense can argue we should just turn around, declare victory and go home. We are in it for the long haul. Powell was right about that much - Bush broke it, so how we own it.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

was it you who bet me we'd have invaded Syria by now? someone did, and I want my money.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Not me. We're on for the Senate in 2006, and I plan to repeat my SB pool win, but that's all.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Perhaps I misread you. Apparently you were invoking the Sebby/Paigow* corrollary to discussion: using another post as a mere jumping off point. I guess I need to get used to that; it seems to be happening a lot lately.

And if you are not a moral absolutist, then why were you expressing agreement with Spanky, since his entire argument on the war is based upon his incorrect assertion that it is his adherence to the universal moral code that compels the killing of Iraqi insurgents, because otherwise they would kill Americans? I accept your statement that you aren't a moral absolutist. I just don't understand the part where you are agreeing with Spanky.

Perhaps I failed to understand what you meant by this. Would you please elucidate?



*<sniff> I miss her <sniff>

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Honestly, the main use of the word "patriotism" I've seen lately has been the huge, uninformed (or maybe just plain dishonest) outcry that people were calling Murtha a coward. Aside from that Jean whatever character who used a quote aimed at labeling a course of action, every R i saw responding to Murtha was tripping over themselves to call him an honorable, worthy, patriotic guy. You just keep making up this shit about "you called him a TRAITOR!" Bull.

As for the rest of your post, I really missed how it responded to what I said.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I know! We should have . . . elections!

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Come, come now.

There was a concerted attack on Murtha in media outlets and a very colorful outburst in Congress. Only when it was clear that the Administration and the Republican leaders in Congress overplayed their hands did they backtrack.

And both Mr. Spanky and you have pushed the point today that people who speak against the war are undermining our troops.

When you say silly things like this, you risk turning moderate eggheads like Me and hawkish Democrats like Murtha into flaming antagonists, and that is precisely what is happening right now in the "debate" on Iraq.

Question
 

How short staffed is the JAG Corps? I honestly don't know if there's some sort of major lawyer shortage in the JAG. I vaguely recall there being some JAG presence in law school, but not THAT much. Mainly at minority job fairs and some posters on the wall next to the DOJ materials.

Is this simply a question of principle or is there a demonstrated shortage of attorneys in the military that would be solved by more active recruiting on law school campuses?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Mostly calling him stupid. As I pointed out in a long post just a few days ago, in my mind, if someone is pursuing their own vision of what they think this country should be, or do, they can seldom be called traitors. To be a traitor, to me, involves selling out your country for personal gain, like the spies of yore. We owe our allegience to our country, not necessarily to the politicians running it. There were a few media outlets calling him a traitor, but there are usually a few on your side calling me one for my positions.

One rep, passing on words to the effect that pulling out was a cowardly plan, and that Murtha, as a Marine, ought not be going there. Recognizing that she had been too close to the edge, she withdrew the remarks, and apologized.

Bull. Look at the actual quotes, not the "ohhh, he said . . . .!" Bush, Cheney, Rummy, all made very respectful noises about Murtha, and then questioned why such an honorable guy would fall in with such braigands. McClellan just about genuflected, calling Murtha god's gift to the flag, and then wondered, like everyone else, why Murtha would want to follow a plan that seemed to come directly from the Michael Moore School of Warfare.

Yep. That's the "stupid" part. That's why I said that people should make the arguments they need to make, but consider the cost when choosing the means of expression.

(ETA - not merely "speaking against the war" - I meant, like Dean, claiming we've lost,or like Kerry, claiming our soldiers are terrorists.)

Micahel Moore thinks of himself as a moderate. Your "hawkish" Murtha has been calling for withdrawal since last year. You can't arbitrarily decide that the center is waaaay over here, and then accuse me of abusing the reasonable center.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

My post was aimed directly at your comment that you were perhaps too tolerant in your statement last week concerning treason and traitors. The two things I got out of that were that (i) you were begining to think that perhaps being critical of the war could be viewed as treason and (ii) you were suggesting that those who speak out against the war were, if not outright traitors, at least unpatriotic.

Admittedly, you didn't use the word "patriot" in your post. On the other hand, I was being generous and suggesting that perhaps you were not really suggesting that anyone who questioned the war was not actually a traitor, but not a loyal American.

I'm sorry if I gave you more credit than you wish to claim. Traitors they are, then, one and all.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

This is the second time you've missed this key distinction. I was saying earlier that "treason" must have a very high threshold, because, if I dissent against what my government does because I think its actions do not fit what America is or should be, then I am still serving my country. Difference with the new post was Dean's comments about "we've already lost." He's passed the point that Hank spoke of in another post - he's now saying things that directly cause harm to soldiers in order to garner votes. He's getting far closer to what I would call treason with those words. I do not apply this to, as you say, "speaking against the war." Such speech is and should be proper. Dean has just moved on to shock speech with harmful effects with no concern about those effects. There's a way for him to express his opinions about the war just as clearly without doing what he's doing.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how has Dean directly harmed the troops? He's a loudmouth and a blowhard, and it's really only a small but vocal minority of his own party that pays him any heed. I realize he's the titular head of the party, but I don't personally know a single Democrat who thinks he's anything but a maroon, good for entertainment value but little else.

Haley Barbour has more influence simply because he's a Republican. Surely you wouldn't claim that he makes policy for Bush, would you?

You're ascribing more influence to Dean than you would under any other circumstance if you mean to suggest that he can affect any change. Hell, the most he's likely to do is lose more seats for the Democrats.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

You are doing it again.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

He can't help it. Once it becomes a talking point, it's read-only.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Troops are out in the field, fighting, helping rebuild Iraq, meeting and helping the people, risking their lives daily, re-enlisting in a cause in which they believe.

The national chairman of one of our two major political parties has just announced that they're wasting their time - that they've already lost, that it's useless.

The past failed presidential candidate has just announced that they're the new terrorists in Iraq.

A "hawk" Dem senator has just announced that they're bloodied and whipped and really want to bug out, and should, "immediately."

So, how's their morale? How enthused can they stay, how hyped up for the work will they be? isn't it easier to stay motivated when you see yourself as a the good guy, and not the terrorist? Don't you do more inspired work if you think you're winning, as opposed to having already lost? How motivated will the terrorists and bombers be, now that they're seeing concrete indications that their killings might yield the desired result?

Any chance some of these factors might have performance issues associated with them?

That's how Dean and Kerry and Murtha have harmed the troops.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

"It"?

You dispute that this is exactly what he meant? I can understand that - it's a stretch. But it's fun to see you react after yourself having spent significant typing claiming that Murtha got slimed when THAT didn't happen.

This one must be YOUR ox, right?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Everything's perfect! Keep up the good work, W!

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Believe it or not, my Ox is the debate and the level of it.

You did two things here: first, you once again made the discussion about the people, not the issues.

Second, you misread his statement.

Of course, the misreading follows from and is motivated by the desire to make the people the issue. Yes, you like to "stretch".

Once you break the world up into teams and all the reds are right and all the blues are wrong (or all the blues are right and all the reds are wrong), you've pretty much lost the game. And that is why I objected to the partisan attacks on Murtha.

By the way, when I first mentioned Murtha, I combined it with praise for McCain, who has spoken frankly and honestly throughout this debate. It was you and others who decided to make the discussion about Murtha.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Can you think of ways to express dissent and reservations and alternate plans without saying "we've lost!", or "they're bloodied and beaten", or "they're terrorizing Iraqis!"?

I bet I could.

But ranting and making shit up is so much more fun, and it energizes the base!

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

How about this: we went in unprepared, and we still do not have sufficient troops on the ground to fully control the situation, apparently the result of the misguided notion of our leadership that we would be welcomed with open arms and that everyone would just be cool once we got there and rolled through. Our troops have suffiecient strength to defend themselves and westerners within enclaves, but they have not projected enough control in Iraq to actually establish stability in the countryside. If we were to pull out now, we would leave Iraq a chaotic mess. However, there appears to be no concrete plan to change that fact, such that when we pull out in five years the country will be stable. We haven't lost, but we sure as hell haven't won. Indeed, if Saddam is not executed or otherwise dead before the US pulls out, I'm not sure that even your first criteria of a win (toppling Saddam) has been satisfied long term.

Additionally, our leadership has approved interogation techniques that I believe are immoral and violate the basic tenents upon which this country were founded, although I think they are doing so under the (mistaken) belief that this will somehow be to America's advantage. Look, I'd like to figure out some way of raising this issue without sounding like I'm saying US troops are torturing people, but US troops are torturing people.

As for the ranting and making shit up, where did Democrats learn that? "From you, alright. [We] got it by watching you."

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Wrong again. Early in the process, the administration had a list of 6 or so justifications and was roundly chided by the NYT, among others, because it was "unclear" which ofv the 6 was the cause belle (sp?). Eventually, WMD moved to the forefront, primarily because it was the only one that the media could understand/market.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Ha! So it's the media's fault now?


Everything's perfect!

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I listed some of the issues that militated towards going in to Iraq, and our national discussions of those issues. You dealt with not a one, but merely said that most people now think it was a stupid decision. I do not feel as if you have led here by example, if hieghtened debate is your true goal..

This part of the discussion was about what individuals have done, and the effects of those actions. How does one discuss that without resort to individuals?

He said that American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqis late at night. His words, not mine. I stretched to use "terrorist", but that's not that much of a leap, especially in a context where a press secretary can say "hee's a great guy and an honorable one, and we're puzzled why he would go for a plan that seems to have come from the Michael Moore wing", and people here then claim that he attacked Murtha's patriotism and said that Murtha was just like Moore.

No, I could care less about "the people." I care about the actions of the people. And we cannot discuss this stuff without including that topic.

But the "partisan attacks" on Murtha by anyone who counts were . . . where? It's just as egregious of a thing for you to make these unsupported generalized statements. Yes, you like to "stretch."

Who defines "red" and "blue"? Is it D v R? Pro-invasion v. anti-invasion? Liberals v. conservatives? There's lots of mismatchinhg depending on which definition you choose. But, if the definition is directly related to where one falls in these particular discussions, how can you NOT break down the "sides" in that way? If I think that withdrawal now would be a huge mistake, and "red v blue" is defined as "withdraw now v. not", then, yes, there are going to be lines drawn, and teams formed, and generalizations made, and they will all be valid. I think you're just using this chain of thought as a way to mask how you chose to define r v.b, and how you treat each team.

Who the heck was talking about McCain? Not me. I'd rather speak of Lieberman.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Cool. All without "we lost!", or that other stuff. And, I'd buy a fair amount of what you just said. I'd argue some, especially about how we were and are welcomed, but not the main themes.

I have friends over there who tell me that we have far more control, and far more Iraqi cooperation and goodwill, and far more of a remade society than what we're presented with in our normal information delivery process here, so I end up with a more optimistic feeling about it all than do you. I'd argue that we DO have a concrete plan, and it's the one we've been using for some time, and it's working. I guess only time will tell on that, though.

I can't address this entire topic. I just don't know enough about it to speak with any authority.

Yes, son. Now hand over that joint and go to bed.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

So the administration, so famous for steadfastly pursuing its goals in the face of any and all opposition, floated a list of six justifications, then said OK and caved when the NYT whined that a) there had to be a single causus belli, and b) it was unclear which one of the six was the cb?

The administration then said to the media, Pick whichever one you want, pick the easiest one to market, that's fine with us?

The media then picked WMDs because it couldn't understand or market the ideas that SH was a ruthless killer, or that he supported terrorists, or that he was a destabilizing influence in the ME ?

Is that how it went ?

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

I never said such an absurd thing and I don't think anyone on this board has ever said such an absurd thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk Note that once you say it's okay to kill the insurgents, Saddam, terrorists, etc., you lose the ability to claim that you are morally opposed to killing. Therefore, the best you can argue is whether you or someone else gets to decide who will die.

I understand that in some cases killing is morally wrong in some cases it is Ok and in some circumstances it is a moral imperative. Like if the only way you can stop someone from killing an innocent child is to kill them, then you must kill them. I have pretty well thought through my moral structure and I am comfortable with it.

For some reason you think that morals have to be simple. Like all killing is wrong. Why do you think that? It is more intricate than that and I don't understand why anyone would think it has to be simple. Just because I support free speech does not mean I think it should be legal to yell fire in a crowded theater or that libel and slander should be legal.

I have never even entered into that conversation. I don't know anything about what Libby did. What I did say is that lying under oath should be prosecuted by the full extent of the law.

Where is the contradiction? Yes a free press is important for a democracy, and I have no problem with the US planting propaganda to help establish democracies inother countries. There is not contradiction there. Why is that a contradiction?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by taxwonk You claim that we are not engaging in torture, but you defended the existence and maintenance of undeclared prisons and prisoners.

I never claimed that we were not engaged in torture. I have never discussed those prisons on this board but I do defend them. What is wrong with them?

I have got one that I have thought through. You clearly have not thought yours through or you would not throw out mindless phrases that mean nothing. I think if you read my posts you will see that I have a consistent moral philosophy. I don't see any consistency in yours.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

You forgot the {sarcasm} html.

I think what he meant was that the admin listed quite a few reasons why we should invade Iraq - I listed some of them earlier today, and, if you were here way back then, you should remember all of us debating all of those points - but that apparently confused the poor media, and they, in their reporting, seemed to cover only the WMD reason with any great effort or breadth, and so the national conversation centered on that. And Powell centered on that in his presentation, I think because, at that point in the discussion, that was the main argument that people were focusing on. (I wish he had been more broad in his approach, but that's hindsight.)

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

When did I say this? I never said this. It is Ok to kill insurgents to stop them from killing our soliders and innocent poeple. It would be better to arrest them, but if we can't arrest them, or we can't arrest them without allied casualties we should kill them. Is there anyone on this board that think it is not morally OK to kill insurgents?

It would be a moral imperative to kill an insurgent if you had a gun and you saw an insurgent running towards a school strapped to the nines with bombs. If you didn't shoot to stop him that would be immoral.

Why do you find those concepts so heinous. Why are my moral positions so offensive. You say you are a moral relativst - well then. What is wrong with the terrorist attacks on 9-11? If Al Queada thought they were moral, then who are you to critisize them for what they did.

I believe the intentional killing of innocents that serves no purpose other than to instill terror is a universal moral wrong. As a relativist you can't say that. I have a moral compass and you don't.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Give me a break. The troops who think they are doing good work aren't going to have anything but scorn for Dean and the ones who don't think they're fighting the good fight are going to have morale problems no matter what some old man back home is saying.

The terrorists and bombers have no morale problem either. The insurgents are fighting because they beleive they have no other choice. The terrorists are fighting because they believe they are in a holy war against the forces of evil and they will be many times blessed if they die a martyr in the struggle against the infidel.

The troops whose hearts are in the fight understand that they are fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy. I am sure they would feel no more common cause with those back home who are fighting harder to suppress dissent than they do with the enemy abroad. Both are anti-freedom.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I've never seen the phrase in French. The Latin is causus belli.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Mr. Spanky? As I said before undeserved respect.

I have always said is OK to critisize the war strategy, even the decision to go to war, but to say we don't have a chance is undermining our troops. I think it is clear that Saddam was evil, and that the insurgents are evil and want to do evil things. As long as people acknowledge that, but say this may not be in our strategic interest, we are fighting the war the wrong way, or we should get out now even though it will leave a problem fine. But to say that we are losing, or that we can never win undermines confidence. If those statement were true it would be another thing, but no one could possibly know whether or not we can really win, so to say that we cannot undermines moral and emboldens our enemies.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I disagree that the MSM was so powerful, or the bush administration was so inept at communications, that the message was dictated by the MSM's inability to grasp more than a single cb. It's hard to believe they were calling the tune and the bush administration had to dance to it, especially if you posit that they were too dumb to figure out how to sell newspapers on the idea that SH was a ruthless sociopathic mass murderer who had the capability and intent to do us harm too. It also flies in the face of the well-documented fact that the neocons had great concerns about Iraq leading up to the war, and also bush, cheney and rumsfeld's - I'll be charitable here - great interest in Iraq even before 9/11.

This incidentally illustrates what I believe to be an error in viewing the MSM as liberal or conservative. They are neither - that gives them too much credit for actually having an ideology and sticking with it. They are, plain and simple, whores to whoever is in power at that moment. They will crawl across 20 miles of hot broken glass to lick the tire tracks of the trucks carrying the laundry of someone who will give them a WH inside tip, no matter how small or insignificant, be it Democrat or Republican.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I suspect most of the men and women in the field have a much better idea of how the war is going that any civilian on Capital Hill. They don't need to be fed rosy scenarios - they won't believe them anyways.

And, I suspect not all the insurgents are "evil and want to do evil things." Some of the Iraqis have deep seated animosities between them, and the fact that the Kurds and Shi'ites are ascendant is going to result in bloodshed with the Sunnis. We need to be careful not to make ourselves an ally in a war on the Sunnis, and not to turn ethnic discord into widespread Sunni alliance with al Quaida.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

We aren't debating saving helpless children here. We're debating the propriety of killing adults, based upon their politics and religion. Explain, if you can, and I submit you can't, why your support of the war in Iraq is anything more than a decision on your part that it's okay to kill the insurgents because we are trying to enforce a social order that you deem superior.

You may be comfortable with your choice, but you can't deny that it is a choice, and nothing more.

I never said it was simple. I said that they represented a choice between competing philosophies. You can claim the moral high ground, but you can't defend it in objective terms. That's my point. You're the one who is suggesting that it should be simple. You claim that the US invasion of Iraq, and our continuing occupation of Iraq, is the moral thing, and that anyone who isn't supportive of that is stupid and morally wrong, because dissent or criticism are urting the war effort.

If it isn's so simple, then why are you so afraid of allowing debate on the issue? Why do you insist on calling people who don't agree with you stupid? Why do you suggest that noone should express dissent because it hurts the war effort?

A free press is essential to democracy, but it's okay to corrupt the press by planting false stories or using money or coercion to distort the stories reported by the press? You really don't see that as a contradiction?

You agree that freedom of the press is important but you have supported censorship and suggested that it was immoral for the LA Times to report on the DoD planting stories in the Iraqi press. If you don't see the contradiction, then I can't explain it to you.



What I see in your posts is nothing but a host of contradictions. There is little consistency in your statements on a logical or rhetorical basis. The only consistent theme is that you are clearly supportive of the current adminstration's actions in prosecuting the war.

I don't see that as a consistent moral philosophy.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Wow. I'm afraid it is time for me to talk to Dr. Spanks. He has much better reading comprehension. Please feel free to continue whatever it is you are doing.