We have already answered the question of the generals. Some supported fewer troops to reduce dependence. Obviously, Colin Powell disagreed and he may have been right. Then, again, maybe such high numbers of troops would have stirred resentment against the occupying force which was another fear. I guess we will never know but stop trying to pretend that there is always perfect unanimity on these matters and that any sign of disagreement is proof that Bush ultimately must be incompetent. Looks like the Middle East is starting to move toward democracy. Let’s all celebrate that trend.
As to the rest of your claims and counterclaims, when you have the proof we will talk. I do not have to deal in a world of what may or may not seem strange to you. I shudder to think of what that must all entail.
Fred, c’mon, let’s get serious here…a fake journalist gets a media pass under an assumed name. Fer crissake. As everyone has been saying, except neocons like you who are too busy bending over backward for your man Bush, these are the facts. The onus is on the White House to explain such an embarrassing security gaffe. It is most obviously, most decidedly, and most emphatically not mofangongren’s responsibility to come up with any more “proof” than what is already known and on the table here. The preliminary facts are there for everyone to see. The only issue remaining is for the White House to explain itself. The ball is in their court, not Mofangongren’s. Your obfuscation on this issue discredits you.
Three further points: (1) his shilling for a reactionary rightwing “media” organization is bad enough; (2) lobbing softball questions to the leader of a democratic country is repugnant; and (3) the fact that the current administration allowed this to happen would be funny if it weren’t so downright scary. You may counter that Bush’s minions setting up this type of media control would be too obvious a ploy, nobody would be that stupid, but I wouldn’t be so sure myself, as the level of intelligence of the top guy has rather set the tenor for the whole administration. I mean, hey, keeping innocent people in Guantanamo for three fking years without any legal recourse is a huge public relations disaster, it goes to the very heart of what America is supposed to represent in this whole ideological war on Islamofascism, and one would think that to be rather fking obvious, but apparently it is not to Bush.
As such, I would not put the rightwing “media” plants in the press corps past this administration.
Sorry. My understanding is that he used his real name to get the job. His fake name was the one that he used on the porn web site. He had no criminal violations or terrorist connections that would have raised red flags in a security check. I imagine the prostitution would have been revealed (deliberate) if he had been up for a more sensitive job, say, one in the administration.
Yes, the security gaffe I agree with. This should be explained but again, it was not as if he was a security or terrorist threat so why would his prostitution under a name come up at all? Should it have? I do not know. Like you I agree we should hear more about this breach.
Why not? The man is a career mud slinger. If it were anyone else on the forum, perhaps I would not ask so much but MFGR has engaged in nothing but hit and run accusations. Well, let’s try this? Nope, doesn’t stick or you have an explanation and then what about this? Aha no proof that my wild accusation is not true that Bush was fathered by Martians well there you go then and denial ain’t a river in Egypt!
I disagree. I think that your taking and supporting MFGR’s statement here is somewhat of a discredit to you. The man is a joke. Prove that this was orchestrated by the White House or leave it alone. Yes, the security aspect if there is any should be accounted for but it is not like the media has not raised any number of issues regarding Bush, his background, his leadership, the war in Iraq that go far beyond the treatment they gave to Bill Clinton, why? I believe that the media is biased. I believe that the Gannongate came out only because the media investigated who the hell this loser was and came up with the goods. Would they have done that if he had been shilling for Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson instead? Do you see my point here?
True. But was it effective? More importantly, can anyone prove that the administration orchestrated this? No. So we are back to square one again, another media allegation to smear Bush that cannot be proven. These people might want to take a lesson in what consistutes slander and libel.
As a journalist yes. But I seriously doubt that this Gannon is a serious journalist. AND I hardly see the difference here with the set up in Kuwait to nail Rumsfeld with the armored car incident. I think both are reprehensible but the major difference is that no one was listening to Gannon, would take him seriously or even would read his what is it? Talon News? On the other hand, the media efforts to play up Bush’s National Guard service, the disappearance of explosives at al Qaqaa and the armored car incidents all show a pattern to smear the president and swing the election to the Democrat candidate. Witness the extreme reluctance of the major media to address the Swiftboat veterans’ claims. What was the difference? Both were unsubstantiated claims. Why was one more newsworthy than the other? Hmmmm?
Prove that anyone in the administration “allowed” this to happen. Again, what was Gannon’s security threat? If you have ever gone through a security clearance you would know that the questions focused on are very different from those required for “moral” positions. Hell, they probably thought prostitution was just another eminent credential for a journalist on the job.
Ah so finally we do get to the point. You hate Bush. You think he is stupid and therefore while you have no evidence of anything here, you too feel that we should lassoo him? I mean what about the loss of rights under the Patriot Act? I thought innocence until proven guilty was a major concern for the left, the loss of which was eroding everyone’s rights, but that only matters when Democrats are involved right?
It is because the media makes it out to be one. These are not little innocents caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were enemy combattants and any of them that want to be released to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia can just go right back there for all I care. They will get even worse treatment. Finally, I notice that the press does not mention that many European nations have similar policies. Germany had a huge national debate for years about the appropriate use of torture in criminal cases if it meant saving lives. France has had a policy since the mid 1980s where they can detain anyone “suspected” of terrorism for THREE YEARS without putting them on trial. What’s the difference? Why doesn’t the media provide this information to give balance to its news stories? And then you woonder why people like me are so suspicious when yet another Gannongate comes up with the press “demanding” answers when it has not even provided any evidence of wrongdoing, intentional or otherwise.
Maybe it is obvious to Bush. Notice the democracy flowering (well at least beginning to) in the Middle East. Perhaps, your “views” are being molded to a large extent by the endless litany of outrage in the media. This started from Day 1 when Bush decided to go to war. The media has been against this from the beginning and they are furious that they have been proven wrong about so many things. Please shake this delusional media molding off and take a good look at the realities. We may disagree but do not even for one moment pretend that Bush is stupid or that he does not have values at the heart of his strategies, and it is precisely these values that are delivering the results when 60 years of realpolitik did not.
Oh for the Love of God. The great evil genius Karl Rove has to rely on Gannon to get his story out? AND the liberal media which votes more liberal on issues than Berkeley is going to swallow this? or let themselves be influenced by this? What the hell? I think your hate of Bush is turning you into a blind rage-filled spewer of crap ala MFGR. Get on a grip on yourself. Your posts used to be somethiing that I enjoyed reading. This is incredible.
Why not? The man is a career mud slinger. If it were anyone else on the forum, perhaps I would not ask so much but MFGR has engaged in nothing but hit and run accusations. [/quote]
What does that have to do with anything? On this one issue, he has a perfectly legitimate question, and you’re obfuscating. I don’t have time to read everything everyone posts here. Yes, I have observed Mafongongren spewing a lot of tripe. Have I called him on it? I don’t know, look in the archives. I don’t care. Every now and then a moment of free time coincides with my bullshit detector going off, and I join in.
I disagree. I think that your taking and supporting MFGR’s statement here is somewhat of a discredit to you. The man is a joke. Prove that this was orchestrated by the White House or leave it alone.[/quote]
Whoa…I’m dealing with an issue here, and you’re turning it into an ad hominem soap opera. Maybe 99% of MFGR’s postings on this board are a joke, but that doesn’t mean he can’t hit the nail on the head sometimes. Again, I don’t read everything, so I don’t know what he or you are saying elsewhere. But here, I know.
And just who do you think you are to tell us to “leave it alone?” “Gannongate” is a serious issue in a democracy, and the White House has a helluva lot of explaining to do, though clearly none will be forthcoming.
First of all, pace Christopher Hitchens, I think Clinton’s reputation is shot not by his dick, but for bombing that pharmaceutical plant in Sudan to take some of the attention away from his dick. That was evil. I’m not partisan. But you can’t be serious if you’re suggesting that Clinton got the soft glove treatment in comparison to Bush. And you can’t be serious, doubly, if you think a Zmag lackey getting that many press passes in the 1990s wouldn’t have set off alarm bells like the ones we’re seeing now.
Then what the fk was he doing getting those press passes? It was the White House, not the fking Rotary Club!
The prostitution thing is irrelevant.
Yes, I do despise Bush. I tolerated him up until about mid 2004 or so, when things started going south in Iraq due to his exasperating stupidity. And that’s not to claim that Kerry would have been any better, which is truly depressing. Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.
A guy got privileged access who should not have. The onus is on the White House to explain how that happened. And this is “no evidence?” What are you, nuts?
It is because the media makes it out to be one. These are not little innocents caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.[/quote]
Some of them were, apparently. Look, I understand that this is a different kind of war, it’s not cut and dried, with a clearly defined opening salvo and end to hostilities, after which you send the POWs back home and they get on with their lives a la Germany and Japan. But it is an ideological war, and we’re not winning it. Some sort of due process needs to be set up there. As it stands now, it’s tyrannical.
It’s all wrong. The consensus on torture, from what I’ve read, is that information gained by torture is virtually never of any use, and merely serves to undermine any moral authority the torturers may have had or pretend to have. And being detained three years without trial? Normally I would find that to be an outrage, but I would make an exception for France.
That was sarcasm.
Some good things are happening. Any triumphalism here is grotesquely premature, though, and attributing some of what is happening to Bush’s policies is just grotesque. Palestine? Please.
Oh for the Love of God. The great evil genius Karl Rove has to rely on Gannon to get his story out? AND the liberal media which votes more liberal on issues than Berkeley is going to swallow this? or let themselves be influenced by this? What the hell? I think your hate of Bush is turning you into a blind rage-filled spewer of crap ala MFGR. [/quote]
“Who’s this guy? Talon News? Whatever, here’s his pass. Next.”
Erm, hello Mr. Strawman? No one’s claiming that the “liberal” media was being “influenced” by Gannon.
You liked it when I skewered the Left when they deserved it. Now I’m skewering Bush and the right when they deserve it, but you don’t like that so much. No, now I’m a “blind rage-filled spewer of crap.”
Let me just point out that I did not know so I said it “was my understanding” that he had used his real name. Sorry. My mistake.
Again, this is an issue of security breach as far as I am concerned. They should find out and then answer for that.
As to this reporter being a paid shill that was hired directly by the White House, I will wait till I see proof. I have seen everything else under the sun from Halliburton payoffs to nonarmored cars to imaginary wmds that no one believed in attributed to Bush. I am becoming inured to this endless drumbeat of accusations and then failure to prove any of them. Sorry if I do not take this one any more seriously than the past 10 unproved allegations.
Finally, you are free to criticize whover you want. That is up to you. I just think that when you think that this is an urgent matter that requires an answer that you may have gotten a bit off your rocker. Who cares? If Bush thinks that hiring this shill is going to succeed at getting his news stories out then he deserves the failure he reaps from having this laughingstock on his team. This is the man who hired Karl Rove and assembled one of the most amazing teams and Cabinets ever and you think that he has to hire someone like Gannon? And even if someone at the White House did, where’s the crime? Was he responsible for outing Valerie Plame? Was anyone being mislead by his cheerleading? What about all the many far more eggregious examples of media leading like the questions posed to Rumsfeld in Kuwait, the amazing frontpage headlines of explosives that may or may not have disappeared in Iraq 1.5 years before the election, the amazing resurgence of interest in Bush’s National Guard records, the sudden 100,000 killed story and then the absolute refusal for week after week to even take the Swiftboat Veterans story seriously or give it any serious air time? What gives here? If Gannongate is the worst that the media can throw at the White House and if they want to see anyone prosecuted, I say bring it on. If they say people should resign, I agree, but then I want to go right back and say to all those who published these allegations and made them frontpage news, guess what? Better follow your own advice. All of you must resign as well. Follow Rather down the shame trail of partisan journalism.
Until then, I just cannot be bothered to concern myself with some whore in the press corps. I thought that was a basic requirement. But then again, maybe I am wrong. But with all the important things going on in the Middle East, this does not even count as a mudstain on my fender. Keep on trucking.
PP – Here’s my quick version of how the IP forum works: We post information with links and Fred denies that anything published by anybody on the planet is true unless it comes from one of those right-wing crackpot blogs. Thus, any argument or fact is counterable in his mind by saying that it was published in the “liberal media”. The sports scores, obits, classifieds, crossword, comics, and especially any photographs cannot be trusted because they’re all printed by the “liberal media.”
Tigerman, what I see is that Fred’s “prooooove it” button is stuck on overdrive and that he does not accept information posted or refuses to admit that we’ve posted it previously. Did I accuse him of anything or did I simply characterize the actuality of exchanges within the IP forum? Within the previous exchange between Fred and PP, Fred has already called me a “joke” and “career mud slinger”. He also apparently wants to put something he calls his “hot poker” into me, although I feel Mr. Gannon/Guckert would be better suited to taking my place on that score.
Getting back to the purpose of this thread, do you have any response to the concerns of some of these generals?
[quote]Models that have long since been discarded as failures are hectically being revived. For example, US military advisors are to be embedded as supervisors and support personnel within units of the new Iraqi army, who have the dubious but well-deserved reputation of fleeing the minute they come under fire.
Precisely the same recipe was incapable of stopping the Vietnam debacle 40 years ago. Military officials are also talking about forming death squads, whose job would be to track down and eliminate the insurgents within the territory they control or to which they normally withdraw. This would include foreign territory beyond the borders of Iraq. It’s a strategy that was largely discredited during civil wars in Latin American in the 1970s.
These experiences have led military personnel in particular to call for a rethinking of Washington’s strategy. The Pentagon’s civilian leadership has not been faced with so much criticism from within its own ranks since the Vietnam War. Retired general D. Barry McCaffrey is even concerned that “the army will lose its base in the next 24 months.” General Peter Schoomaker, the current Chief of Staff of the US Army, has already warned Congress against drastic consequences, saying that “it may be necessary to augment the regular armed forces,” something that Rumsfeld wants to avoid at all costs, mainly for budgetary reasons.[/quote]
It’s all wrong. The consensus on torture, from what I’ve read, is that information gained by torture is virtually never of any use, and merely serves to undermine any moral authority the torturers may have had or pretend to have. And being detained three years without trial? Normally I would find that to be an outrage, but I would make an exception for France.
That was sarcasm.[/quote]
PP,
This is an interesting point you raise. I have a question for you about this, but I’m going to ask it on the “Outsourcing Torture” thread okay?
No I have carefully pointed out why I think that Gannongate is ridiculous. How EVEN IF all the allegations are true is this subverting democracy? No one listened to the man, no one read his newspaper. He was a joke to everyone. I am expected to believe that Bush hired this person and that there is some grand conspiracy. AND all of this from outraged posters who had nothing to say about what seems to me to be grand conspiracy among the editorial boards of the major newspapers and tv stations in America to selectively print as much bad news about Bush without any kind of qualification or any attempt to find a source to balance this? Give me a f***ing break.
So I am sorry but I do not see any proof that
The White House outed Valerie Plame
The White House had anything to do with hiring Gannon.
Halliburton overcharged the US govt.
The US govt was criminally remiss in not supplying armored vests and armor.
The US govt was criminally remiss in not guarding explosives sites.
The US govt was only interested in securing the oil ministry.
What I have seen though is media reports about Stalingrads that never took place, chemical weapons that were never used, museums that were never looted, refugee flows that never took place, armed intervention from Turkey and Iran that never took place, an uprising in the Arab Street, the overthrow of moderate regimes everywhere.
Nor did I see any news reports that highlighted the vindication of Halliburton in headlines or answer as to why the al Qaqaa incident and the 100,000 civilian deaths and Bush’s service record were all such important news before the election but the Swiftboat veterans was not.
MFGR:
You have supplied allegation after allegation which you have repeated ad naseum and quite frankly I just ain’t see much proof out of you yet. When you have supplied proof (TWICE) I have agreed with you.
I agree with you that port security can be done better but it was in fact being done or there would be no report detailing how the many projects were often inappropriate uses of money.
I agree with you that supplies should be gotten better and faster for our troops. How do you want to do that?
I agree with PP that there is much about the planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion that leaves desired.
But I fail to see what all this is about? Bosnia and Kosovo had faults too as did other campaigns. AND how could the media possibly know that this was going to be a mess in Iraq. They were preaching it before we even invaded, but their story has changed to death in the desert sands to didn’t protect the museum to quagmire three days into the campaign. THAT lack of objectivity has made me very skeptical of the media and its motives and if you do not see that, well guess what? I think you are blind.
First of all, this is not the first time generals have disagreed amongst themselves. Want to go back and reread the comments made against Wesley Clark for his high air campaign and reluctance to commit ground troops in Kosovo?
Second, I would argue that our approaches in Central America and Vietnam were successful. I believe that we had won Vietnam by Tet so I would not be against using some of the same tactics in Iraq as were used there.
Third, despite all the naysaying and the obstacles along the way, we have in fact accomplished many remarkable things. I hate to say this but 1,500 dead in two years of war to remove a terrible very well-armed dictator and occupy a mess like Iraq along with Afghanistan and actions elsewhere is truly f****ing remarkable. Anyone who thinks all this could have been done far easier does not understand warfare and insurgencies.
Could we have planned better? I believe so but I also believe that many of the critics here are more driven by their hatred for Bush than their true concern for the troops, Iraq, reforming the Middle East and that they are just spewing out an endless series of complaints that in and of themselves can often be viewed as mutually contradictory. So we hear demands to pull out the troops one day and add more the next. We are blamed for not stopping the looting but criticized for rushing to protect the oil fields. You get the drill. I just think that it is boring.
[quote=“Youssef M. Ibrahim”]Around the Arab world nowadays, many will tell you: look here, starting with a messy invasion in Iraq, the Americans have delivered a few things, including ridding Iraqis of a bestial dictatorship, giving them a first taste of free elections and significant freedom of speech.
Yes, but this is a squabble not among generals but between generals and the chickenhawks.
At what cost? Do you think sending out the paramilitaries and zippo-ing a few villages is going to play out well in today’s media environment? How do you think that’s going to look on Al Jazeera? We’re in a fight for ideas, and we’re going to lose this fight if we follow the “Salvador Option”.
There’s a guy in Kansas who has built a giant concrete statue that he bills in big roadway signs as the “world’s largest prarie dog”. That’s also truly f****ing remarkable and, like the war in Iraq, also full of a lot of bullshit hype. Perhaps Bush will next turn his attention to making the world’s biggest ice-cream cone or creating the world’s biggest chocolate-chip cookie.
Are you really arguing that the critics I posted are driven by their hatred for Bush? These are generals who have devoted their careers to carrying out the orders of their presidents, who care deeply about their country and about protecting the American people. They don’t speak up unless it is very important to do so.
You want to know why the Bush administration gets criticized? It’s because they refuse to admit that problems exist and question the patriotism of those (no matter who) who raise the problems. It’s because they do boneheaded things and then lie about it. It’s because they treat 9-11 as a partisan fundraising event. And it’s because accountability doesn’t exist within the Bush administration except to the extent that they deep-six guys like Powell who don’t fall right in line with the neoconartists.
Sure, I get the drill. The American people get the drill. American democracy gets the drill. And we’re a bit tired of it.
Only 43% of Americans think we’re winning the war? Damn, Fred and Tigerman, you guys better get those other “traitors” into Gitmo straightaway! We have to win that “war on ideas” as fast as possible.
