Lieberman Reports- You Decide
I read Joe Lieberman's editorial that Sean provided to us. This is a positive report, and if this holds true, that is great. I will admit, I have been more open to accepting the negative news coming out of there, as opposed to the good. Part of it is my natural disdain for war- killing another man who I dont even know is just not my bag baby; part of it is because I just think the negatives far outweigh the positives. That, and this war was orchestrated by men without principle, courage, and any lack of decency or morality. These men are no Christians- Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith definitely are not- and there is no excuse for how inhumane and arrogant we have been- a result of poor preparation and management from the top.
Agree with the war or disagree, I dont hate anyone for their opinion. My heated arguments of the past have not gotten me or anyone else anywhere, and I realize that they are a microcosm of the division that exists in our country today. We are supposed to be fighting close-minded fascists that have adopted their own twisted version of the Muslim faith over the course of centuries of conquests and war. And I just dont trust our government that cannot deal with their problems at home, establishing their position in the middle of a region like the Middle East and Central Asia.
I am ashamed of the unprincipled, close-minded cowards like those in our administration today; all of the allegations of inhumane treatment and torture should be disturbing to everyone. I do not want us to become the enemy we are trying to defeat- that there would be no victory. The report is good to hear though, dont get me wrong. Any success in Iraq is good, I will never argue against that. I hope the Iraq people really do rise up soon and take their country back and it flourishes. Any of this success, though, would ultimately happen despite our leaders.
Agree with the war or disagree, I dont hate anyone for their opinion. My heated arguments of the past have not gotten me or anyone else anywhere, and I realize that they are a microcosm of the division that exists in our country today. We are supposed to be fighting close-minded fascists that have adopted their own twisted version of the Muslim faith over the course of centuries of conquests and war. And I just dont trust our government that cannot deal with their problems at home, establishing their position in the middle of a region like the Middle East and Central Asia.
I am ashamed of the unprincipled, close-minded cowards like those in our administration today; all of the allegations of inhumane treatment and torture should be disturbing to everyone. I do not want us to become the enemy we are trying to defeat- that there would be no victory. The report is good to hear though, dont get me wrong. Any success in Iraq is good, I will never argue against that. I hope the Iraq people really do rise up soon and take their country back and it flourishes. Any of this success, though, would ultimately happen despite our leaders.
posted by DM at 2:56 PM
15 Comments:
Ted Turner says Iraq 'no better off' after U.S.-led war
The Associated Press -
November 29, 2005
MANHATTAN, Kan.Media mogul Ted Turner said Monday that Iraq is "no better off" following the U.S.-led invasion that ousted dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Gee I am SOO confused! Who do we believe, Lieberman or Fonda's ex?
Seriously though, CH, keep in mind what one hears vs. what is reality are not always the same. Many polls have indicated that a VAST majority of media reporters and figureheads are against the Iraq war. This should be an indication of what is reported. Never trust media, CH, because it is always laced with bias and opinion--even moreso now as journalistic ethics continues to decline.
I remember returning from South Africa years ago and reading an article in TIME Mag about apartheid. I sort of dismissed the picture while reading the article, but then refocused on it when I noticed a statue in the background. The gist of the photo showed a huge white soldier looking guy standing over a bunch of black South Africans who looked like they had been whipped, beaten, shot, whatever. The caption of the photo referenced the violence of apartheid. The problem was, that the picture was taken in a park in Johannesburg, the black Africans were taking naps, and the white soldier was a local policeman on his beat. This was my first look at how openly dishonest the media was.
Follow that up with the LA Times getting busted for doctoring photos of an American GI "threatening" an Iraqi man holding a child, the Boston Globe faking photos about GI's raping innocents, and the Washington Times trying to make Condi Rice look like Satan, and I think one will start to get the idea.
You see, CH, an ideologue loves to be lied to, as long as it is a lie he wants to believe--but a true man of principle will become enraged by lies whether they fit his paradigm or not. It doesn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative, truth is not relative and we should demand nothing else.
I made my rounds--CNN.com, NBCnews.com, ABCnews.com, MSNBC.com(which is the same as NBCnews.com), CBSnews.com and could not find a report on Lieberman's comments anywhere? Do you think this odd, CH? Does the Conservative media have to bring things like this to a grudged forefront for these people to report it? Any report denigrating the United States or making things sound bad gets rush treatment.
Or does it make a difference who is in charge? (Do you remember any reports on "homelessness" during Clinton's presidency?)
Or heard the latest about the economy? Its a raging bull! We are flying--doing better than ever before! Heard about it lately?
Understand a little of my skepticism?
I understand all of your skepticism as far as the media is concerned. Absolutely do. The media is horrible and I wonder who runs it these days. Do you understand my lack of faith in our administration though? Is it unjustified?
CH, your lack of faith is justified. I find the Bush administration appalling in its willingness to compromise on core principles when those in control think they can get away with it. I have even found myself doubting the genuineness of his faith from time to time (and I suspect Jack has too). I believe the term Rove used once is triangulation. They buy the votes of libs and moderates (in vain, if you ask me) by catering to special interest groups like the AARP, and even the NAACP. Get a backbone, for goodness sake.
However, I think you and other Bush opponents might be better off pointing out the fallacies of the strategies Bush is employing in the war on terrorism, not that he and his ilk are liars. Lieberman made it clear that he too had a problem with strategy in the past, and is now giving the administration credit for changing its strategy.
BTW, I am impressed with your analysis every time I read one of your posts or comments. You should review my most recent post on RWA for an example of how shoddy analysis and poorly thought out ideas can cause me to snap (as well as my first experienced with Mochi). It's much more fulfilling dialoguing like civilized, thinking free persons, don't you think?
CH, this is really hard for me. You know I am not a flakey person, but I have a hard time judging one way or the other. I tend to look at results versus processes and in a macro sense we have not experienced a domestic terror attack since 9/11 so something must be going right. I know that time after time we have been attacked by terrorist leading up to 9/11 and nothing was done, and even with all the threats it is 5 years later and there have been no attacks. I'm not saying that there won't be, just that there hasn't been, and so based solely on results I would have to say that there have been some successes. Also, it is very easy to armchair quarterback. Bloggers are masters at it (me included) and we can say what we would and wouldn't do, but truth is we were never in the position to make those decisions. Who knows what Kerry would have done. Who knows what Gore would have done. They may have done the same thing, and if they did would we be hearing the same thing we hear currently? I would have to say that with certainty we wouldn't because if you ask the average American anything about Bosnia or Serbia they can tell us absolutely nothing, and yet that was botched warfare AND foreign policy. (In retrospect we can see that clearly now--but at the time hardly any of us knew that the United States was even at war!) Of course would I have done anything differently than Clinton did? I have no idea--I have never been in that position.
I am a little uncomfortable about judgemental words like you used: "...by men without principle, courage, and any lack of decency or morality. " Such character judgements are hard to arrive at, and often impossible. Arriving at them so easily usually is a result of believing someone elses opinion. Sometimes it takes a lifetime living with an individual to make such assumptions. I remember making mistakes about people who I had pre-judged because I misinterpretted their actions or assigned my own meanings and understanding to them. Or...I listened to something derogatory about them and formulated an opinion based on that. More often than not my assumptions proved incorrect. I have a dear friend currently who I thought of in derogatory fashion before I got to know them. For example, President Bush and some of the men you speak of live under the threat of death every day. Real threat--many people want to kill them. There is only so much security provided by secret service, and yet they go about their jobs every day. Many people would run and hide if they lacked courage. Does Bush strike you as lacking courage? Do you know how he would really react in any given crisis? Morality is often relative. They may not share your morals, but then again they may have morals and principles that we don't have. As far as I know Bush is very faithful and devoted to his wife--he is not a philanderer and that indicates some moral fiber. I guess being the "old guy" here, I have eaten enough crow to make sure that arrive at these judgements only after much supporting evidence and only after great deliberation. I bring up Clinton to Shea a lot, but I was never one to judge him for matters I knew nothing of. But that's just me, CH.
On the handling of Iraq, the war, etc., I suspect that 5 years from now we may have a clearer perspective, CH, but right now, in spite of the VOLUMES of information I have read both partisan and non, it pains me to admit that I still don't know.
(p.s. I am just as anti-war as anyone, CH. I do not like it, have never been fascinated by it, disdain it. But on the war issue I am never "either/or". Does that make me "nuanced"?)
Good and thoughtful post, BTW!
-Jack
Oh, on the torture issue--Are we torturing people on a wholesale basis like the media is reporting? I firmly believe in the ticking bomb circumstance, but have not had any of my friends on the left particularly address that one head on.
I would say that the media reports on it so excessively it seems like it is so widespread. That there has been so much about it is disturbing either way. Hopefully that has/does cease. Much of this came about from interrogators who were not well-trained in the art of interrogating these suspects. And honestly, I have always tried to not associate Bush with the rest of the administration. I think he is just there, always have. But you are right, I used some pretty judgmental words. It is really easy to do sometimes, but overall perhaps unnecessary. It does not strengthen any argument, just makes it more passionate, which does not necessarily go well with reasoning, or run-on sentences.
I agree with you here too Kevin. I kind of put a stop to my Bush is a liar rhetoric a while back, because I just do not know, and I think the administration really believes in what they are doing, and for so many reasons. However, the Bush lied argument is still all over the place. I absolutely agree with what you had mentioned about pointing out the fallacies of the strategies as opposed to labeling the administration liars. The latter is just banal, but the former really carries weight when you get into it.
And yes, I enjoy a good dialogue. I like everyone's ideas and value people's opinions. It is a constant learning process as well, which is nice. Jack, for example, provides insight right there. Ideas are ideas for a reason- they are how we would make our lives better; whether you agree/disagree, you ultimately cannot blame someone for wanting to make life better. But of course, there are crowds out there that dont seem to have any ideas, just insults and negativity. That is human nature.
Conversely, if things turn in Iraq as Lieberman predicted, what will the lefties say about Bush's strategy then? Does anyone think for an instant that Bush will get the credit? I suspect all the media outlets but Fox News will claim that the U.S. presence delayed the peace process, and that a quicker pullout would have forced the Iraqis to take control sooner. Or that a bigger American presence would have hastened the peace process as well. It's a stretch I know, but the knee-jerk, unthinking lefties will say anything to win back the White House. My biggest fear in this scenario is that Lieberman will run against Hillary for the Democratic ticket, and win the nomination. I can't think of any conservative Republicans I like, and if given a choice between Giuliani, some other moderate Republican, and Lieberman, I don't know what I'd do.
CH, know what you mean about the passion. I get carried away also, so forgive if I sounded a bit "holier-than-thou" :)
The reason I come here to NL's is that we DO engage in dialogue--and consequently I learn a lot. I am not so stuck in my ways that I can't still learn!
-Jack
The best thing about being a right winger is that we are "holier-than-thou" ;)
haha, uh-oh.... that statement could cause problems here Kevin.
But I hear what youre saying about the previous statement. There is a disturbing lack of representation on both sides here.
Ha! CH, I think even NL's recognize tongue-in-cheek :)
A followup:
Remember when John Murtha came out about a "we aren't winning the Iraq war--we need a timetable for troop withdrawal". I saw him on EVERY news station and on almost every news talk show on cable IMMEDIATELY.
Where are the Lieberman interviews? (I don't get Fox News, so I don't know if he has been on there yet)
I would love to say they are out there, and that there is nothing going on, but they are not. It's been a day or two now. Interesting, to say the least. I am still not too optimistic of this endeavor, but it would have sparked a worthy discussion had this been reported. I haven't seen it on Fox News even. But Brit Hume will have a report on whether Kerry flip-flopped on his Iraq war stance. Whatever purpose that might serve; the election was last year. Maybe it takes a couple of days, I dont know.
Okay, I am really late coming in on this one and no one will probably be back to read this comment anyway, so for my own peace of mind I will comment on one part of Leiberman's article that is contrary to what we hear from Bush, etc.
"It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists..."
If that's true, then where the hell are they? Why is it so hard to find and train an Iraqi army or police force to do the job? Could it be that maybe those figures are bullshit? Could it be that more of the article could be bullshit, too, from a guy who plays kissy-face with Bush and supports the war and likes to crank the lever of the same propganda machine as the Bushies?
Okay, I am really late coming in on this one and no one will probably be back to read this comment anyway, so for my own peace of mind I will comment on one part of Leiberman's article that is contrary to what we hear from Bush, etc.
"It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists..."
If that's true, then where the hell are they? Why is it so hard to find and train an Iraqi army or police force to do the job? Could it be that maybe those figures are bullshit? Could it be that more of the article could be bullshit, too, from a guy who plays kissy-face with Bush and supports the war and likes to crank the lever of the same propganda machine as the Bushies?
Post a Comment
<< Home