Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake
October 22nd, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |or so says Jonah Goldberg. His article is interesting for what he says now (”it was a mistake”) and for what he does not say (”we should therefore leave”). Something else he does not say is “Stay the course”. While he does not say what the different course should be, in his opinion, he does provide an interesting suggestion:
I think we should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay.
Now before you say, “But the polls say that Iraqis want us to leave”, he’s cognizant of that and he has a response:
Polling suggests that they want us to go. But polling absent consequences is a form of protest. With accountability, minds may change and appreciation for the U.S. presence might grow.
If Iraqis voted “stay,” we’d have a mandate to do what’s necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted “go,” our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. And pretty much everyone would have to accept democracy as the only legitimate expression of national will.
Finishing the job is better than leaving a mess. And if we can finish the job, the war won’t be remembered as a mistake.
I think it’s an interesting proposal. Referenda are a staple of our own democratic form of Republic. Why not theirs?
It would also have another benefit. It would either affirm or take away the “The Iraqis want us to leave” argument from those who want our troops out of Iraq.
Bush has actually said that if the Government of Iraq told us to leave, we’d leave. Such a referendum might give the Government the legitimacy it needs whether we stay or go. It would be doing what it was elected to do: represent the Iraqi people.
What do you think?
71 Responses to “Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake”
By Liberal Jarhead on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
I’d like to see the result of a poll asking the Iraqi people their preference if offered not only the either/or choice of the U.S. forces leaving abruptly or “staying the course,” i.e. more of the status quo, but a third option - the U.S. occupation shifting its force structure and activities to a mix of mostly reconstruction with whatever ongoing counterinsurgency fighting is necessary to protect the reconstruction and the people being done by special forces, i.e. surgically rather than the massive firepower approach.
It was criminally stupid not to plan for what would happen after Saddam Hussein’s government was eliminated; in WW2 we planned carefully and in detail for the reconstruction and restoration to stability of both Germany and Japan. The result was those countries as we see them today, stable, economically powerful, decent places for people to live, and staunch allies, as opposed to the situation in Iraq which seems to be headed for something that will look like Somalia, a lawless hole where a country used to be that will be an ongoing source of misery for the people who live there and a wonderful place for terrorists to use as a safe haven and training ground.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Stupid, yes. Criminally? I don’t know. That would require a law to have been broken. I’m not sure which law that would be. No doubt Iraq has been done poorly. No argument there.
By Jersey McJones on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Finishing the job is all well and fine WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT THE JOB IS. I don’t think we have a clue.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
As I understand it, the job is mostly done in that our objectives were taking out Saddam and replacing his regime with a democratically chosen government under an Iraqi drafted Constitution. What remains is to restore it to peace, rebuild and get the heck out, leaving behind a country that is democratic, stable, peaceful within and without. Hopefully a country that, if not freindly to, is at least not actively hostile to the US interests in that part of the world, not conducive to terrorism.
Leaving before that is done, or at least before the Iraqi government is able to bring that about in our absense, would, in my opinion, be disasterous.
By Dusty on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
I have seen several articles online regarding polls of the Iraqi citizens conducted recently. The only link I could muster on short notice was this one regarding a poll of the Iraq’s about the US troops staying and how long. It was conducted by the U.of MD according to the article.
By Dusty on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
I personally think you are delusional Craig if you think for one minute we can stay there long enough to make sure the country is stable. Its getting worse, not better. The only stability the country ever experienced was under Saddam, which is a sad fact..but a fact nonetheless.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
I don’t rule out the possibility that I am delusional. It depends upon what you mean by “can stay there long enough to make sure the country is stable.” Do I think us capable? Sure I do. Do I think the US has the political will to do so? Not at this point and that’s a shame because, as I say, leaving before that would be a terrible mistake.
Of course, don’t rule out the possibility that you are delusional. After all, what is a delusion but the description of your world view as given by someone who disagrees with your view of the world. That doesn’t make their view of the world right and yours wrong. Many a person has been thought deluded who was, it turned out, correct.
By Dusty on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
How do you even begin to suggest we can make Iraq stable? Its a country that is filled with hate for their own citizens based solely on religious intolerance for the most part. To think for one second that we can stablize Iraq when we are the outsider everyone loves to hate is a noble idea but not one based in reality. Who has the ideas that you seem to buy into Craig? Give me a link to something which is based in the realities that are getting worse by the day in Iraq. I gave you a poll which shows the citizens of Iraq want us out in a metered amount of time…but the fact is..they want us out. We created this monster that is now Iraq. To say we must stay and fix it is fine..if someone has a realistic plan and is aware of what we are fighting besides the insurgents..we are fighting the people we said we were going to save.
Noble ideas are fine..but they are not based in the reality that Iraq has become. Its a country divided along the lines of the three groups who have always hated each other: Sunni’s, Shia’s and Kurds. As I said..the only time Iraq had any semblance of calm was under Sadaam. How do you propose to fix what has been going on for decades and decades, as an outsider no less?
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
Well, it requires more troops. We have lots and lots of active duty troops throughout the world and they are, with the demise of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the cold-war, no longer essential there. They are needed in Iraq. Not everywhere in Iraq, but where the insurgent problem is the greatest. Also, if the military is stretched thin, increase the size of the military. This is one idea of Murthas with which I agree. How? Increase pay, perks, etc. I don’t think a draft is either necessary or a good idea. If that takes taxes, scale back some of the tax cuts to pay for it. In general, I think that’s a bad idea but a ruined Iraq is a much greater harm to the country than the economic effects of some raised taxes.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
I am still hoping that the ideals of self-government, enhanced freedoms, the economic boosts that, in peace-time, free societies and free economies experience will prove a better incentive than mass graves, gassing cities, torturing and murdering anyone who even looks like they might be a dissenter to peaceful coexistence.
This will take more troops and more time. We may well be able to leave mostly before the goals are fully achieved. If the Iraqi military and police can be manned and trained to the point that they can take care of their own security and attain and keep their own peace, then the rest can be accomplished with almost no presence in Iraq or perhaps with no presence there.
By Dusty on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Your ideas are good, they are honest ideas. But economic boosts will not come to fruition with the Shia’s and Sunni’s fighting each other. One wants to hold women down, the other doesn’t. The fact that these thoughts are also embedded in their religious views doesnt’ help. Its not just the insurgents we are working against…we are trying to bring the Iraqi’s into the 21 century when their religion is still in the dark ages. When people are educated they move forward, bringing their society with them. The Iraq that existed before we got there was a comfortable country with little in-fighting, I am sure most of that was because of the despot that ruled with an iron fist..but it still remains to be seen if as outsiders we can affect real change in a country that still puts its religious views ahead of everything else, now that Sadaam is no longer in power. Look at the Kurds. They stay in the northern part of the country and watch as the Sunni’s and Shia’s kill each other in and around Baghdad. They just don’t care. You are not going to affect change if people want you gone. You can not force people to get along, or to put their religious differences aside now that the damn has broken open with the fall of Sadaam.
Troops will not solve the problems of religious groups who want control. You can stick a million soldiers over there and you will become what Sadaam was..a tyrant who forces his beliefs and desires upon the masses. We are now caught in the crossfire there. We are the collateral damage of two religious forces trying to kill off the other.And Both sides refuse to call off their “dogs”. Niether the Sunni’s or the Shias want to be the one to blink. And neither side thinks they can trust us. Without trust, you will build nothing.
By Dusty on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Well, since I seemed to have stopped the discussion on this, I will attempt to restart it with an Opinion piece today on the NYT. which address’s the “what do we do now” question:
Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has indefinitely postponed reconciliation talks among the nation’s top politicians. He must receive an immediate deadline to start the process. Tomorrow would not be too soon; the end of the year would be too late.
Whatever decisions Iraqi leaders reached over the past few years were achieved by pushing aside all the critical questions that were hardest to address. The Bush administration must demand not only that new talks start, but that they continue until some agreement is reached on protecting minority rights, dividing up Iraq’s oil revenues, the role of religion in the state, providing an amnesty for insurgents willing to put down their weapons, and demobilizing and disarming the militias.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Well, no point going on about my disagreement about the chances of any sort of victory in Iraq. My position is well known to you all and this article doesn’t change my mind about the possibilities so I’ll skip over that to get to the prescriptions.
First, fire Rumsfeld. I concur. He’s not the man for the job and if that isn’t clear to Bush by now, I give up on Bush as a hopeless moron.
The point about permanent bases: Bush has said that we do not intend to stay in Iraq one minute longer than is necessary to accomplish the job as he has described it so I think that Bush has already made that point crystal clear. I have no objections to him saying it again and often but to suggest that he hasn’t made the point is revisionist, either intentionally or unintentionally. It’s hard to believe that people who have, presumably, followed the political scene as carefully as the editors have can have missed this so I can only conclude that they are intentionally misleading or they simply don’t believe that Bush’s statements have been clear enough. I’ll be generous and go with the latter explanation.
The point that you quoted, Dusty, I agree with. Again, I think the editors’ point tomorrow would not be too soon is true enough but I do not necessarily concur that by the end of the year will be too late. However, the sooner will definitely be the better. The editors are right that the difficult decisions have been put off too long and they need to be made now.
I also agree that the threat of withdrawal if concrete progress is not made may be the only way to achieve real progress and concessions from all sides. The interesting point here is that, although almost every Iraqi will say that they don’t want the Coalition forces there, the Sunnis are refusing to open their doors to the governmental police/military forces unless there are US forces there also. That says to me that, whatever they may say, they recognize that a US pull out at this time would mean likely more death squads, kidnappings, torture at the hands of militiamembers and governmental forces. They don’t want us there but they know that they are in trouble if we’re not. On the other hand, I think the Government has not seriously asked us to leave because they know their chances of survival in the midst of the present turmoil without the presence of Coalition forces is hovering at just about nil right now. This might give us leverage to give a greater boost in motivation on all sides except Al Qaeda to make needed concessions and cooperate.
I am not yet decided on whether I think that division of the country is a good idea or bad…or rather, whether it is the better of bad alternatives or whether it is the worse of bad alternatives. I’m not sure that the editors are right here. They say that only the Kurds are for the idea. I think that’s wrong. The only ones definitely against the idea seem to be the Sunni and if they could be assured a sharing in oil revenues into perpetuity, an assurance that would last beyond the third day after we outsiders had left, I think many, if not all, of the Sunni insurgents would give up the fighting. In short, I think that that, along with security from vengance seekers for the Sunnis previous mistreatment of the others, is the main sticking point.
Anyway, that’s the first part of the article. I’m commenting as I read the article. I think I’ll submit the comment now, although incomplete. I am surprised at how much I find myself agreeing with the Times’ editors when it comes to their concrete suggestions. Ideologically, of course, it’s another story.
Anyway, that’s my comments so far into the article.
Thanks for pointing it out, Dusty.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
To continue,
On securing Baghdad, I agree that Rumsfeld’s doctrine is a failed one. There are not now and have never been enough troops there. The editors suggest that the only solution is moving troops from elsewhere in the country and, in the short run that’s probably true but I think, as I’ve mentioned also, that will mean bringing more troops from elsewhere not only in Iraq but from elsewhere in the world. There is no longer, in my opinion, anything essential about the presence of our troops in most of Europe and elsewhere. Where they are needed is in Iraq. The sooner the better.
Again, the editors are far gloomier than I am about the possibilities and that’s understandable…they also have a “fire the bums” editorial stance to advance so anything that suggests too strongly that a success in Iraq is still a likelihood would be cutting across the grain of their political agenda.
In practical terms, this article is impressive. That I find so little to disagree with, as I said, surprises me quite a bit.
Well, I guess I was closer to finishing the article than I realized. I could have just finished up in my previous comments.
Well, live and learn.
Again, thanks Dusty, for the article.
By Dusty on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
The Sunni’s are the group that wish to keep women in the dark ages, right Craig? They don’t want to educate them, allow them to drive cars, a whole host of barbaric bs. Or is it the Shia’s..I get so confused as to who is doing what to whom and who’s religion is more detremental to womans’ rights.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Dusty, I don’t know which is worse for womens’ rights. Frankly I don’t think there’s a whole lot to choose from across Islam for women. They do best in Countries that are run as essentially secular governments. The more Sharia is looked to as the law of the land, the worse off women are.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
This article seems to be a good and fair discussion of women’s rights and Islam. Not necessarily the definitive discussion but might help to understand some of the issues.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
This Wikipedia page, while being short on discussion, is long on external sources.
By Dusty on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the links Craig. I will check them out. I know its sorta off topic the womens issues, but to me that the only way for me to take sides in this issue. Whichever one offers more equality to the females.
Now, I must prepare for the Tigers/Cards game. The World Serious takes the priority tonight..it can’t always be politics ;)
By 4Truth on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Craig - As I understand it, the job is mostly done in that our objectives were taking out Saddam and replacing his regime with a democratically chosen government under an Iraqi drafted Constitution.
Craig, thank you for that truth. I agree with you 100%.
BUT nobody voted for that. That is not GWB said. I heard WMD.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
4Truth,
You’re welcome. You weren’t listening carefully enough. Read the AUMF in Iraq. Removing Saddam and replacing his regime with a democratic government was right there for all to read long before the invasion and it was what Congress voted for.
By 4Truth on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I agree with that statement about GWB replacing Saddam Regime BUT USA should not Nation Build. That is wrong. Saddam is a Bad guy BUT USA does NOT have the right to invade any country unless attacked.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Congress disagreed with you on all counts. I won’t argue with you about the rights of the thing. I’m not a lawyer or expert in international law. There are cetrtainly those who believe that what we did was illegal. Kofi Annan, among them. That is an argument in which I decline to participate other than to say that we were right to remove Saddam and to say that we were attacked…hundreds of times…by Iraq…who shot repeatedly at our fighter jets as we flew over Iraq enforcing the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone. As far as I am concerned, those were acts of war, as was the attempted assassination of a former President of the USA.
Of course, as I say, I’m not a lawyer or expert in international law. I am not capable of competently arguing the legal case for the war.
However, your argument is with Congress and all of those Congresspersons who voted to use military force in Iraq who were confident that they were not only right to invade Iraq but that they had the right to invade Iraq.
By 4Truth on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Craig, That is why you are a Dufass - we were right to remove Saddam and to say that we were attacked…hundreds of times…by Iraq…who shot repeatedly at our fighter jets as we flew over Iraq enforcing the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone.
Shooting at a plane does NOT constitute WAR. Lawyer or not.
Craig - Congress disagreed with you on all counts. The American people were LIED to. No WMD, No Buying of Yellow Cake, No Mobile labs. LIED to, Lied To. What don’t you get? Lied to by the 1 man on the planet that should have credible information AND THEN LIED about it. America did NOT want to go to WAR to get rid of a Dictator as you just stated. That is NATION BUILDING.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Well, since you’re not a lawyer (you’re not, are you?) I am no more inclined to believe you than you are to believe me. In my opinion shooting at military jets who are there at the request of the world community sounds like an act of war to me. It doesn’t to you. That’s what makes the world go ’round: different people think differently.
Lied to…that sounds like you have some sort of proof that Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq…as opposed to believing George Tennet when he looked the President square in the eye and told him that it was a slam-dunk that they had WMD. Where’d Tennet get that notion? From numerous places: the intel agencies of half a dozen nations, from defectors from Iraq, from the cagey way Saddam kept preventing inspections of all sites.
On the other hand, you say he SHOULD have had credible information. Should have had is not did have. What he had, as the investigation into pre-war intelligence determined, was intel that the intel agencies believed was true but was not. In short, he did not lie about it. What he did was tell the truth as he believed it. That’s what the investigation determined. I’ll go with their determination. Yours is nothing but your opinion and you are welcome to it.
As for buying Yellowcake, nobody said Saddam had bought yellowcake. What the President said was that, based upon British intelligence, Saddam had sought significant quantities of Yellowcake. You really do need to get your facts straight before you go calling me a Dufass, cocksucker (what the hell, as long as we’re calling one another names…). Peddling bullshit for facts is bad for the credibility.
By the way, the Butler Commission determined that the attempt to purchase Yellowcake was one of the few pre-war bits of intel that was, in their words, “well founded”. Furthermore, when Mr. Wilson came back from Africa and reported to the CIA what he’d found out, the CIA determined, or so they told the investigating commission, that what Wilson reported strengthened, rather than weakened the case that Saddam had attempted to buy uranium from Niger.
And before you bring up the forged documents…they were not what the British intelligence based their determination on the Yellowcake affair upon so don’t even bother to go there.
You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to make up your own facts as you go along.
Now, cocksucker, I’m done with this conversation.
Have a nice day.
By Dusty on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
4Truth, why in the hell do you insist on calling Craig names when he doesn’t agree with you? Craig and I seldom agree yet I see no reason to resort to name calling. Your off topic again as it is. This thread isn’t about why we went..its about what do we do now? Rehashing the bs on why we are over there is ridiculous unless your a senator and your going to do something about it. Everyone who frequents these boards knows how Craig feels about the runup to the war. Your like a fucking broken record and frankly you screw up more threads with your bs than anyone that comments here.
Just once, can’t you get over yourself and your selfrighteousness? Perhaps you prefer arguing to discussing? Thats all this thread has turned into once again. Thanks a fucking alot.
Just in case this point has escaped you…This thread was created by Craig. I consider it rather rude to attack the author of the post on a point which wasn’t even in play. I don’t think I am the only one either. If you want to discuss the why’s and where for’s of the reasons we went into Iraq..start your own fucking thread.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Thanks Dusty.
I have a mea culpa to make. Happily the PC police haven’t stepped in and castigated me for using the term ‘cocksucker’ in a blatantly perjorative (if there is any non-perjorative sense of the word). It cannot have been a pleasant thing for any gay person to have read.
I apologize for using it. I cannot stress how angry I am at the way 4Truth hauls out names in the place of rational argument or how little I think of him as a debater but that does not excuse my rudeness.
By Dusty on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Well, you always try to maintain civility Craig, and I totally understand why you lost your grip and called 4Truth a cocksucker..however..we, or at least I, have no idea if 4Truth does in fact..well, you know..so perhaps another name like Fuckwit would work for you? Its not gender specific and it doesn’t have connotations like the word cocksucker.
I have been plowing through the links you put up before I disappeared to watch the Tigers get their asses’ handed to them last night. I am over my depression, its a new day..and where were we?
By Dusty on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
I think the “civil war” that is going on,whether our current administration admits it or not, is the biggest factor in what we can attain in Iraq. Everyone but the current administration is using the term. Another point, I saw on the news last night that our soldiers took fire comming FROM INSIDE an Iraqi police station. This was on the CBS evening news, so for the MSM to talk about it, it must be something tangible. Do you agree?
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
As it’s your thread, if 4truth keeps making nothing more than insults you would be within your rights to delete or creatively edit his comments.
By 4Truth on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig - In my opinion shooting at military jets who are there at the request of the world community sounds like an act of war to me.
Get a Brain or join reality. Saddam or any military commander shot at a plane and the USA should now mobilize 100,000 troops, spend $600 Billion and have 3,000 Soldiers die to invade Iraq because they shot at a plane.
Dusty, 4Truth, why in the hell do you insist on calling Craig names when he doesn’t agree with you?
Well if any sane person would go to war at shooting at a plane then I am wrong. I think to die for that reason is stupid, idiotic, sad and then ask a dead soldiers family the same question. When you make a Dufass remark like that you are a Dufass.
I said I agreed with Craig when he said “As I understand it, the job is mostly done in that our objectives were taking out Saddam and replacing his regime with a democratically chosen government under an Iraqi drafted Constitution”
Craig admits that the job is mostly done with USA objectives. Craig said were taking out Saddam and REPLACING his regime with a USA backed chosen Gov’t. That is not what 1 country does to another. That is NATION BUILDING.
That is Wrong.
By 4Truth on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Dusty - This thread isn’t about why we went..its about what do we do now? Rehashing the bs on why we are over there is ridiculous unless your a senator and your going to do something about it.
Obviously if we did want to fix Iraq we would elected Kerry. You do not have to be a senator to fix this just ask the protesters against the war. Rehashing nothing. If on 11/7/06 you re-elect the liars that went to war then you fix nothing. You have to see who sent you to war and get rid of them if you want to solve the war. GWB & Republicans have always said trust us, stay the course. 11/7/06 decides where we go from here.
By Dusty on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
I didn’t realize someone died and left you in charge of who is right and wrong or what people can believe or disbelieve..your attitude makes you appear very smug and above the rest of us
So with that said..you truely are a fuckwit of mythic stature and I salute your dumbass for what it is;
An overbearing bag of batshit, who is one very intolerant, self-absorbed douchebag. Consider any of your fucktarded comments to be on ignore from my side of the computer screen.
By 4Truth on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Dusty, so what specifically did I say that was right or wrong? I am only stating facts.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
4Truth,
That I must be either brainless or disconnected from reality to think, as I do, that shooting at our jets is an act of war is not, I know this is hard for you to hear, a fact. It is opinion. Your opinion. Since I no more believe that you are a psychotherapist, and therefore able to make such diagnoses, than I believe that you are a lawyer, your opinion on my sanity is no more informed or valid than your opinion on the legality of the Iraq war and is just as easy to ignore.
Jeez. Why do I keep talking to you? Maybe I am nuts.
By 4Truth on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig, you really must be have an idiotic opinion brain if you go to WAR where actual American people called Soldiers DIE and $600 Billion is spent because someone shot at your plane and even missed. You must be really sick to send someone else to your idiotic bidding. Then go kill them youself.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
4Truth,
You really do need to get a different moniker. One with some truth in advertising about it. I have not said that Saddam shooting at our planes is the sum total of the reasons for going to war. I said that they constituted acts of war. If you want the sum total of the reasons for going to war with Iraq, and removing Saddam, refer back to the AUMF. It is chock full of reasons.
By Dusty on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig..why are you still addressing our resident fuckwit? He/She or It is the left’s version of Sandy evidently..hit the ignore/delete button and move on..now..
The press is all about how to fix Iraq..or if its even fixable. I say its not fixable..we can give them a set of gloves and tell them to have at it. Which I know isn’t popular with the conservatives, and probably even some mod’s and liberals..but its my view. They are shooting at us from inside police stations..Who the hell can our guys trust at this point? Its degrading rapidly m’dear.
By 4Truth on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig, the only reason I saw you state was shooting at a plane. What were your other reasons? An intel report about mobile labs, buying uranium in africa ( mention in the state of the union), a training plane in the desert.
By 4Truth on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Dusty, can’t you answer a simple question? What did I say that was right or wrong? according to you.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
I don’t know. It’s like…I was in a car accident once. It was winter and the roads were icy in places and covered with snow. I was driving slowly and carefully but, as I passed through an intersection, a car pulled out from the road on my left, against the traffic light, and caught my driver’s side rear end and pushed me into oncoming traffic. There was nothing I could do but wait for the car that could no more avoid me than I could avoid it to hit me. I was fascinated. It was like it was all in slow motion. Nobody was hurt, just kind of shaken up but debating 4Truth is kind of like that. I can’t seem to turn away. I know it’s a disaster in the making, that no good can come of it as he’s a mindless twit, and yet I am powerless to let it drop.
Anyway, I’m really tired and I’ve got to get up early tomorrow so I’m going to have to call it a night. There’s nothing that I can say at this point that I haven’t already said so this is it for me.
G’nite all.
By Dusty on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
I had an accident like that in the snow in northern VA..
G’nite Craig
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
4Truth,
Read the fucking AUMF. Christ, man but you are dense.
By 4Truth on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig, as usual you have a link and nothing to say.
By 4Truth on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Dusty, can’t say it or doesn’t even know what right or wrong is.
But answer your Iraq question.
No IRAQ is NOT worth it. The only decent solution said so far was
to split it up into 3 regions and give each sect their own. That might have a chance. Sticking with Repubs after 11/7/06, wrong for Iraq and WRONG for America.
By liberal vet on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Great information. I must say 4truth has a edge to him and an insulting nature. However, this war was an effort to nation build something GWB said he would not engage in. In that particular statement I am compelled to agree with 4truth with this disclaimer. Politically I am way closer to your view. My only suggestion would be to debate Craig in a tolerant manner and not resort to names. Craig said cocksucker, Rev what up with that! LV
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
LV,
I also apologized. I think my apology covers anything I have to say about it.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Bush said that while we could still delude ourselves into thinking that we were safe from terrorism and that terrorists could be kept at bay by bombing aspirin factories.
By liberal vet on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Craig I thought it was hillarious, no apology required. It was just so unlike you. LV
By 4Truth on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Dusty, No Comment?
GWB went to Nation Build in an Islamic World, Nothing the West could ever understand the Middle East Culture. GWB invaded a Country for no reason but GWB reports from the CIA. USA Does NOT belong there. USA should keeep USA Healthy, Wealthy & Wise. AFGHANISTAN ATTACKED the USA. That is where the WAR WAS.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
And these sorts of admissions leak out every now and then. It’s not just at ABC. There was also this from the ‘04 election by Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek:
Yes, let’s talk about media bias, shall we?
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Oops! Wrong thread. Please ignore that.
By 4Truth on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Craig, your Wrong on any Thread when you Link, Quote that 1 sided TRASH of a web site that is made for people like you to push the propaganda.
That is why you are brainwashed and believe that mobilizing 100,000 troops , spend $600 Billion and kill 3,000 American soldiers because they shot at an American plane is a Worthy cause. USA had No right to Invade Iraq.
By steve on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Craig:
It appears you can’t shake the village idiot!
By 4Truth on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
steve, your hear. Who is you hero again. The one that has his own web site that he likes to link to. HB somebody. I forgot his initials.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Interesting how, since 4Truth cannot argue with the plain truth, which nobody can question, i.e., that the person in question said the quote in question on the program in question and therefore supporting my argument, he pulls out his standard nonsense “It’s a one sided site”.
Yeh…that negates the facts cited.
4Truth,
It’s not that I can’t answer your nonsense, I’m ignoring your nonsense.
Have a nice day.
By 4Truth on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I am waiting for you you tell me what the truth is. A link has many facts in it but what is the truth as you know it?
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
4Truth,
I quoted the relevant truth from the link. The truth is that Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek opined in the midst of the ‘04 presidential campaign, that the mainstream media were overwhelmingly in favor of Kerry/Edwards and would bias their reporting in a manner that would add perhaps 15 percentage points to the national support of Kerry/Edwards.
That is the truth to which I alluded. Although that truth has no relevance to this particular thread — as I suggested, I posted it in this thread by mistake — it does have relevance to a thread elsewhere on media bias.
My point above, of course, is this: the fact that I link to a web-site that is, as you pointed out, one sided, does not mean that they make things up. This is a legitimate quote and it means exactly what it says. It hasn’t been ripped out of context to be made to sound like the man is saying something that he did not actually mean.
Now, this quote by Evan Thomas is his opinion. That does not necessarily mean that what Evan says actually corresponds to the facts but Mr. Thomas isn’t some unknown and ignorant schmo, he’s an experienced and knowledgeable person in the media world. Presumably he is in a position to know of what he speaks. The fact that the quote appears on a site who’s author thinks that the MSM is generally left-leaning doesn’t negate the fact that Thomas agrees with that opinion.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
Haven’t you learned yet? As you’re a conservative and as the link was to a conservative site, then even if they happen to be right, that is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. When are you evil conservatives going to understand that the mere fact of your conservative opinions means you’re automatically wrong, even when you happen to accidentally be right?
By 4Truth on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Cranky Brit, NOT SO. When you are Right you are Right. The truth proves it, no matter what your religion, color, politics is.
So far Craig talks about this statement - The truth is that Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek opined in the midst of the ‘04 presidential campaign, that the mainstream media were overwhelmingly in favor of Kerry/Edwards and would bias their reporting in a manner that would add perhaps 15 percentage points to the national support of Kerry/Edwards.
Craigs second word is truth, that is not a truth.
But Cranky Brit what from Craig’s Link Do You consider is right - “then even if they happen to be right”.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
4Truth,
No the truth, and it is the truth, is that Mr. Thomas said this. How is that not the truth?
By 4Truth on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig, Thomas said Kerry had 15% points. That is foolish, an opinion, and barely plausible. BUT CRAIG calls that the truth.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
4Truth,
I did not say that what Thomas said was the truth. In fact I called it an opinion. What I said the truth was, was that Thomas said this. He said it. Therefore, that he said it is the truth.
I don’t know whether the msm’s blatantly biased reporting of the ‘04 race added 15 percentage points to Kerry/Edwards but that wasn’t my point. My point was that Thomas, an intelligent man in the business, who hobnobs with reporters and editors throughout the country, who reads the reports of reporters in major newspapers throughout the country, believed that the msm was pro-Kerry/Edwards, slanted their reporting in Kerry/Edwards’ favor and that would cause readers’ opinions of Kerry/Edwards to be more favorable than might be the case were the reporters treating both campaign’s fairly and equally. That seems relevant to a discussion of media bias to me. What it does not seem relevant to is a discussion of whether the Iraq war was a mistake, worthy or not so I will not be responding to any more comments regarding media bias or Thomas’s quote on this thread.
By 4Truth on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I agree with you that Thomas said it.
From your comment on the piece - Yes, let’s talk about media bias, shall we?
There is plenty of media saying what will sell their media, conservative or liberal. Polls show % all the time at a week or day at a time. Mr. Thomas quote by you at a point in time is the bias. Unless Mr. Thomas said that in Sept. or Oct. would it really mean anything. What was your point. The GWB team got there 15% boost also after the convention. Was that bias too?
By steve on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig… aren’t you tired of trying?
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
4Truth,
To quote myself: “What it does not seem relevant to is a discussion of whether the Iraq war was a mistake, worthy or not so I will not be responding to any more comments regarding media bias or Thomas’s quote on this thread.”
If you wish to have a discussion on media bias, whether it exists or not and in which direction the bias goes, start a thread of your own. Join the forum and publish a diary post of your own. I doubt that I’ll comment there, after all you are barely capable, after repeated explanations by me, of comprehending anything that I’ve said so I am not inclined to put myself in for more of the same from you but you might get others to join you.
Steve,
Yes, I am very tired of trying.
By Dusty on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Farout Craig..I won’t be getting anymore emails on this post? Its clogging up my email for the love of pete ;P
By 4Truth on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
But Craig, i was just answering your comment on tis thread.
Dusty, you never said anything about the 3 sections breakup of IRAQ. That seems to be a way out. Yes, lets get out, the USA never belonged there. USA should of just ran the No-Fly zones which boxed Saddam in. We had an eye in the sky with the worlds blessing.
By steve on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
4truth:
I think what Craig is trying to tell you is: SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! WE GET YOUR POINT!!!! GO AWAY NOW!!!!
Thanks!
By 4Truth on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Steve, who was your hero HB something. Come on tell us. He has his own web site. remember.
By 4Truth on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply
Steve, What was my point? do you know? or think you know?