Tuesday, February 21st 2006
Different War, Same Nonsense
South Vietnam had elections too. Yes, they too yearned to be free. The Vietcong was indeed a small minority of the country that wanted to subvert the will of the peaceful peasant majority.
But none of that mattered in the end because it was a war, and in a war, it does not matter how right you are; it only matters that your force of arms prevails over your enemy’s.
No matter how noble our mission, we are fighting an unwinnable war and the casualty rates prove it.
The chart shows a consistent cycle of casualties, hovering around two deaths a day, that has continued unabated throughout the war with occasional dips below and surges above. The clinch is that these rates did not change because of any move towards democracy .
The fact is that our army is deployed at enormous expense oversees in Iraq, while the insurgents are fighting in their own territory. What we learned in Vietnam is that insurgents like these can fight on indefinitely and unless our Army can actually defeat them in a measurable course of time, the game is up.
Fellow people of reason: Many of us, including myself, supported the Iraq invasion. The time has come, however, to undergo a sober analysis of the changing situation. It may very well have been the right decision with the information given to us by President Bush, but the time has come to analyse in an empirical fashion whether our continued presence in Iraq will actually do the situation any good.
You are forgetting Iran. That thing is going to make Iraq look like nothing, flash in the pan.
Comment by Pete Zaitcev — 2/21/2006 @ 10:41 am
Ok I haven’t had much time to browse these posts yet, but this one really jumped out at me. Mickey, I don’t really understand what you’re talking about. “…it only matters that your force of arms prevails over your enemy’s”– are you saying that the United States’ military force is weaker than that of the insurgents’? The United States is the military superpower of today’s world, in case you forgot. And how can you say that a casualty rate PROVES that we are fighting an unwinnable war? How exactly does a casualty rate show that the conflict will never simmer down? You’re saying that the casualty rate hasn’t changed because of the move toward democracy, but Iraq is not a stable democracy yet. It takes a long time for a country to reach that level of stability. I don’t know of many instances where a country has gone from a tyrannical regime to having democratic elections in the span of a few years (do you???). I think there have been a number of successes in Iraq. Yes, our army is “deployed at enormous expense oversea in Iraq” but do you realize the costs of leaving Iraq right now? If terrorists do succeed in taking down the extremely new democratic system that is being set up there, the hopes of having a transformed Middle East will be ruined. Most “people of reason” would disagree with you on two counts. First of all, they would disagree that we should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place. And second of all, they would disagree with you that we should leave in the very near future.
Comment by Kerry — 2/21/2006 @ 11:45 am
I think he’s saying that the United States military force cannot “prevail over the enemy.” That doesn’t necessarily mean the force is weaker, it just means that it cannot win against this enemy.
Comment by Beetle — 2/21/2006 @ 11:56 am
Ok, but why can the United States not win against this enemy? I’m not quite understanding the negativity here. It almost seems like the liberals’ attitude of pessimism has started to infiltrate the more conservative side of the aisle. Iraq is the central battleground in the War on Terror right now, whether or not you agree that we should have gone there in the first place. Regardless of whether we should have gone, the stakes are highest there at this point in time. With our superior military forces, I don’t see why we would be unable to safeguard the new democracy long enough for it to stabilize. Yes, there have been costs to the Iraq War, but… it is a war, what do you expect? You can say that the costs in terms of casualties are horrendously high (if that’s what you believe), but that cost is outweighed by the costs of leaving Iraq in the near future. So, in summary, I think we can prevail in this war because ‘prevailing’ entails our military forces protecting the democracy long enough for it to survive, against insurgents, on its own without our presence. And I really don’t see any reason why the United States’ military would not be able to succeed in this endeavor.
Comment by Kerry — 2/21/2006 @ 12:09 pm
Our military power was developed to fight large land wars with the Soviets. Most of our famous expensive equipment: multi million dollar stealth bombers, depleted uranium ammunition, and enormous war games are not designed to fight partisan warfare.
It is the irony of a guerilla war, such as we have seen many times in the past, that the gunmen defeat the tanks.
That is not to say that these kinds of wars havnt been won, but usually that happens when the occupying power decides to use its Army to inflict more terror on the population than the insurgents can. This how the British defeated the Boer insurgency.
I am not a pessimist, I am a realist. And as realism has gone out of fashion on the right I will try to bring it back in.
Remember, Bush paved this road with good intentions, but that doesnt mean we have to stay the course with him.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 2/21/2006 @ 12:18 pm
Alexander the Great went into Persia with bad intentions and he wipe out those lofty Persians – teaching them a lesson once and for all. He did such a good job that Muhammad the Prophet praised him for rectifying those out of control Persians. He is considered a prophet in Islam. The Muslim looks down on Bush because they see him as a wimp; and for a matter of fact Clinton too. If Bush wants to become a future prophet of Islam, he better begin to kick some serious behind over there. They respect that type of machismo.
Comment by what — 2/21/2006 @ 1:23 pm
I never wanted to conquer and colonize Iraq (which I’m sure we could). Do you?
Comment by mickeyk — 2/21/2006 @ 2:23 pm
Mickey has set up a number of straw men in his argument here, but at least he’s sucsessful in knocking them down. So let’s begin:
Casulty rates prove nothing. One in three died on D-Day. We still one. Three times as many people died in 3 three years died in 3 months so we could secure Iwo Jima. War is costly. But this particular one has been one of the least costly in history, period.
Second, a military costs money. War costs lots of money. Too bad. The financial cost of war, while substantial, is not grossly so, especially given the longterm benefits of winning. Further, while true that most of our military was not designed to fight an insurgency, they have spent the last three years learning to do so. Now, even the NYT and WaPo are recognizing the growing sucsesses of the military.
Third, Vietnam didn’t teach us that insurgents can fight indefiniately, it tuaght us (or should have) is that no matter the facts on the ground, if intellectually challenged but good intentioned people like Mickey convince enough people that a war is “unwinnable,” it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What is important for the military to do is enlist the Iraqi people to help fight the insurgency, which is happening.
At the end of the day, patience is required. I’m a Geologist, I know that nearly every natural process takes a long time. So I’m patient. The Nazis weren’t stopped in a year, the Cold War didn’t end after one president. Have patience, and faith in the Armed Forces which protect you.
Comment by John — 2/21/2006 @ 3:37 pm
“Vietnam…tuaght us (or should have) is that no matter the facts on the ground, if intellectually challenged but good intentioned people like Mickey convince enough people that a war is “unwinnable,” it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Very well said.
Comment by Morbo — 2/21/2006 @ 5:07 pm
Why is it that we have to “win” in Iraq? The people they elect, we won’t like. It will only free up troops to go to war with Iran. (another can of worms). Our best bet is to make dictator friends like we’ve done Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. How come democracy is necessary in Iraq and not those other places? Neither is more industrially advanced than the other. It’s a whole other issue if it is advanced enough.
Besides (Bush’s) “noble faith” would be weakened in a non-theocratic regieme.
Comment by HB — 2/21/2006 @ 5:46 pm
“I never wanted to conquer and colonize Iraq (which I’m sure we could). Do you? ” - mickeyk
Nope. I wonder how our early leaders would have treated 9/11. I bet they would have done nothing. Gave an ultimatum, and then stuck by it.
Comment by what — 2/21/2006 @ 5:48 pm
Mickey, you are forgetting that regardless of whether or not the war is going to way we hoped, we didn’t get into this war for our own personal gain alone. We got into this war to fight for the principles of freedom, democracy, and anti-terrorism globally. Leaving would prove to the world that we never really had the courage of our convictions in the first place. It is good to be realistic, but it is also important to have character. Until I see something more substantial than a consistent casualty rate of two per day, I will advocate we heir on the side on character in Iraq. When the going gets tough…
…And I still think we can win.
Comment by The Captain — 2/21/2006 @ 9:29 pm
Not all wars have the victory condition total conquest. Our condition of victory is stability in Iraq to the point that the native government that we establish is sovereign in both name and deed.
As long as the insurgency can keep putting suicide bombers on the street, they win.
This is much as Vietnam, where as long as the Vietcong could maintain gunmen living off the land in the jungle, they were winning.
We win every force-on-force engagement with the Iraqi insurgents, as we did in Vietnam. The Tet Offensive, in fact, was a major US tactical victory. But that did not get us any closer to our condition of victory.
The insurgents in Iraq have the drop on us because they pay a far lower cost to inflict penalties on us, while our more expensive counterattacks show no signs of decreasing their ability to inflict penalty. And as they are playing on their own ground, they’re not going anywhere. We, on the other hand, cannot stay permanently without colonizing the country, which is far beyond the parameters of our mission.
Its a slow but consistent rate of change problem, and we are loosing.
If your playing chess and your opponent calls out mate in five, and you verify the moves, is it winning character to continue?
Comment by mickeyk — 2/21/2006 @ 9:55 pm
Obviously it is terrible character to continue (care for a game sometime?), but that’s still a silly analogy because you would only announce “mate in 5” if it was a fact; otherwise you would look like an novice (sub 1000 USCF rating, if you will). You stated an opinion that we are going to lose this war.
Comment by The Captain — 2/21/2006 @ 10:08 pm
“As long as the insurgency can keep putting suicide bombers on the street, they win.”
The only reason this has held true in the past is due to chickenhawk, and may I say chickens***, rhetoric coming out of our own politics. The existence of a resistence does not mean they are winning - they know if they hang around long enough, people will turn on their own government due to war weariness.
John was absolutely right - this is the method of inducing a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s been a pattern of the US, and other countries, since Vietnam. Go to war, but for whatever reason (shellshock from WWII, the spread of information, the growing anti-war factions within our country), we try to do everything as lightly and inoffensively as possible. Then we end up getting dragged into a longer war since we won’t commit all the way, and eventually, people delcare the war a loss, even though the only thing we’ve actually lost is the will to fight.
This happened in Vietnam. It happened to the USSR in Afganistan. It happened in Somalia. It’s happening now.
We bring it upon ourselves. I had hoped this mentality would die out with the Vietnam generation, and that our generation would be less wounded by a difficult war and more likely to be hardened to the challenges of a painful battle.
My faith in that fact wanes, to say the least.
Comment by Morbo — 2/21/2006 @ 11:17 pm
Very well argued John.
“What is important for the military to do is enlist the Iraqi people to help fight the insurgency, which is happening.”
42 Iraqi batallions and counting are currently “in the lead” in fighting the terrorists.
HB,
“Our best bet is to make dictator friends like we’ve done Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.”
And the people living in those repressive regimes, hate the United States for supporting those dictatorships, and the dictator friends deflect anger directed at them towards the United States.
And turning Iraq into a democracy puts pressure on all of the governments in the region to make real reforms towards democracy.
mickeyk,
“As long as the insurgency can keep putting suicide bombers on the street, they win.”
By this logic, Germany was winning in 1945, even after Japan surrendered, since there were still some holdouts trying to fight a guerilla war.
“The insurgents in Iraq have the drop on us because they pay a far lower cost to inflict penalties on us, while our more expensive counterattacks show no signs of decreasing their ability to inflict penalty.”
The terrorists in Iraq are taking far greator casualties.
“And as they are playing on their own ground, they’re not going anywhere.”
Many of the terrorists are not from Iraq. And the new Iraqi government and army certainly are.
“Its a slow but consistent rate of change problem, and we are loosing.”
In a few short years in Iraq, the United States and and its allies, have overthrown a totalitarian government, liberated millions of people, established a constitutional democracy, and reduced an Al Qaeda and Baathist insurgency to random acts of terrorism. Zarkawi’s letters show how desperate the situation is for Al Qaeda. And the Baathists remnants and Al Qaeda members have even started shooting at each other, since the Al Qaeda suicide bombings of civilians had decisively ended any support many Iraqis might have had left for the Baathists.
Comment by Michael — 2/22/2006 @ 1:07 am
The war has done nothing but breathe new life into the most radical elements of Middle Eastern society. They don’t hate us for supporting those “repressive regimes”, they hate us for the decadence. They hate us for pseudo-imperialism. I’ve been to Turkey (a democracy) and various oligarchies in the region, life is not all that different. One major thing is the treatment of women, but that won’t be solved by democracy.
Comment by HB — 2/22/2006 @ 1:34 am
oh and by the way we are not invincible as most of you guys think.
“Hollowed out US industry cannot produce enough ammunition to defeat a 20,000 man insurgency”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10349.htm
Comment by HB — 2/22/2006 @ 1:43 am
Mickey, your comment about realism and how it has gone out of fashion on the right is amusing. I somehow doubt that you actually know what the theories of either Classical or Neo-Realism entail. I recommend any article by Kenneth Waltz (a former professor here and the “father of Neo-Realism.”) especially “The Origins of War in Neo-realist theory”
As it is, I’m not sure what you value in the War on Iraq. Are you at all concerned about what actually happens in the country? Do you care about the country’s newly created democracy being taken down by terrorists? Do you care about a democracy being created in Iraq at all? Do you only care about America ? I mean, if you supported the war initially…what did you support it for? Eliminating a threat to our country and then getting out before having to pay any costs? Is that all America is…merely a self-serving superpower or are we something more? We are more…we’re a symbol of democracy…whether or not the world sees it now is immaterial…if we can make Iraq into a model democracy in the Middle East…history will prove our cause in Iraq to be just and noble and worth the sacrifices.
Comment by Leverandon — 2/22/2006 @ 2:21 am
Leverandon:
A realist looks to self interest and calculates gains by the rational choice theory. Your support of democracy and national character as deciding foreign policy options smacks of Wilsonian idealism.
I know a lot about Waltz’s theories and am a fan of his thoughts on nuclear proliferation.
Dont drop names and theories on me, I’m more well read than you think.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 9:22 am
Mickey, if you really want to be a ‘realist,’ you’re going to have to weigh costs and benefits more accurately. You seem to be taking only casualties into account on the ‘costs’ side of the equation. Don’t you realize how high the costs would be if we don’t “stay the course” with President Bush’s plan? As I said earlier, an Iraq governed by terrorists would destroy all hopes for freedom and peace in the Middle East– which in effect would threaten the security of the United States. You say that “democracy and national character” should not be deciding factors in the Iraq War. However, do you realize what would happen to our supporters in Iraq if we betrayed them by leaving early? They would probably be killed. How can you suggest that we leave before the job is done when doing so would have such drastic consequences for the loyalty of these brave Iraqis? I think that America’s honor in this war should be a huge consideration. Also, democracy may be ‘idealistic’ but it doesn’t stand alone as a factor supporting our continued presence in Iraq. I’d argue that purely in terms of ‘realism,’ we have to stay in Iraq for the security of the United States and other democracies.
Comment by Kerry — 2/22/2006 @ 9:43 am
The terrorists we’re dealing with are Sunni militiamen, Baath loyalists, and foreign fighters.
Alongside them are a slew of other militias that are not slaughtering women and children in the streets, but rather attempting to establish law and order.
Considering that the Shiites and Kurds are 80% of the population and indeed have the most militia power, we could transition a government to a group of their leaders without having the Sunni extremists take over the country.
You have to realize that this is a native rebellion coupled with a foreign terrorist insurgency.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 9:47 am
“You have to realize that this is a native rebellion coupled with a foreign terrorist insurgency.” I actually did know that, Mickey. I don’t see how that helps your argument, though. How is ‘giving’ the Iraqi government to the Shiites and Kurds going to automatically keep the Sunni extremists (and/or foreign terrorists) from taking over the country? They’re still going to be fighting. You seem to think that it would be easy and simple to leave Iraq, but in fact doing so would just be irresponsible on the part of the United States. And I think that a constitutional government is better than the one you seem to be suggesting. So, why not stay in Iraq until this particular constitutional government stabilizes? We’d have to stay for a while even if we ‘gave’ Iraq to certain groups within the country in the way that you suggest.
Comment by Kerry — 2/22/2006 @ 9:58 am
Kerry
…and if we stay the course pig will fly. Peasants and religious fanatics don’t make democracy. Iraq is not a nation. People’s loyalty is to their sect or their ethnic group. The whole concept of Iraq is an artificial one, held toghether by force of a few and the suppression of the rest.
Even if there is democracy established a strong executive will emerge. Either from US neo-con puppeteers or local necessities, but in any case that person will usurp power.
Comment by HB — 2/22/2006 @ 10:41 am
Mickey,
Saying that I’m a fan of Wilsonian idealism isn’t an insult…its essentially correct. I am strongly in favor of the democratic-peace theory and consider myself to be neo-liberal in terms of foreign policy (this should not, of course, be confused with being politically liberal.)
Actually, both neo-realism and neo-liberalism are concerned with “selfish gains,” but in different ways. It all has to do with absolute vs. relative gains. A neo-realist is concerned only with relative gains in “power” while a neo-liberal is also concerned with absolute gains which incorporates economics into the picture as well as other factors. Realist philosophy is also limited to states as unitary actors with no regard for differences in the character of states or non-state entities. Whereas, neo-liberals are very much concerned with these factors. Thus I would caution you to no what you’re talking about before tossing around political science terms.
Comment by Leverandon — 2/22/2006 @ 11:34 am
Kerry, honestly, I know my theory. You dont need to recite your lecture notes to me.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 2:14 pm
So how does foolishness count into the mess we are in right now. Foolishness is not courage mind you, and all your abstract absolute goals, well, you can shove them you know where, this country does not have the money or the authority or the need.
Comment by HB — 2/22/2006 @ 2:23 pm
it’s kinda refreshing more new people take up this cause
Comment by HB — 2/22/2006 @ 2:31 pm
Mickey, honestly, you’re kind of conceited. I suggest responding to what I say instead of trying to convince me that you’re intelligent.
Comment by Kerry — 2/22/2006 @ 3:12 pm
“Iraq is not a nation.” HB, give me a break! I don’t even think I should respond to this, but oh well. You say that Iraqis are more committed to their sects than to the nation… but does America consist of groups whose ultimate identification is with the nation itself? I don’t know of very many people who consider themselves purely “American” (although I do)– I’ve heard people refer to themselves as “African-American,” “Asian-American,” etc., but very rarely do I hear that someone is “American.” Yet we do have a democracy in this country. Is Iraq’s situation different than the situation in America? Of course. But that doesn’t mean that democracy will inevitably be unsuccessful in Iraq. In addition, you say “… but in any case that person will usurp power.” Well then, if that person does usurp power, it’s no longer a democracy. Right? What I’m arguing is that the future of Iraq doesn’t have to look like its past. I think there is a strong sentiment among Iraqis that favors a democratic form of government.
Comment by Kerry — 2/22/2006 @ 3:30 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4731670.stm
Of course we’ll let it fall if the democracy is not subordinate to US wishes. What will be the result if such false idealism is proping up the war effort. There are 3 issues I see here
1. the insult given to religious people, having them create a completely new identity to be their face in politics
2. ethnic tension masked by the war for stability, it’s actually a war for control
3. subordination to US will: cause for retaliation, more terrorism
Comment by HB — 2/22/2006 @ 3:37 pm
When HB reffered to Iraq not really being a country, he was probably noting the faulty way the boundaries were constructed.
Half of the impossibility of controlling the country is that the British put three warring ethnic factions in the same artificial nation state, and then imported a Jordanian family to serve as a monarchy.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 3:49 pm
I have to add, for those who are arguing that American might has achieved democracy in Iraq, or is the goal, you must also define what you mean by democracy. We’ve seen what democracy can mean to the Palestinians, and many in American certainly didn’t approve of those “democratic” results. So, what do you mean by democracy? What is the goal in Iraq? What is victory?
Comment by Archangel — 2/22/2006 @ 4:03 pm
Archangel, by ‘democracy’ I think that most people are referring to a government that is accountable to the people through elections. The goal of the United States in Iraq is to safeguard the constitutional government that has been started there long enough to ensure that terrorists are unable to seize control of the country. Personally, I have nothing against the Palestinian election result. I was really surprised by many of the reactions to Hamas winning in the election, actually. Hamas is a very broad organization with a platform concerning issues such as welfare and education– it’s not solely about terrorism. What I think is that the Palestinians, in voting for Hamas, only have to be aware of the consequences of their elected officials continuing terrorist practices. If a legitimately elected Palestinian government continues to endorse violence against civilians in Israel, other countries will respond. The Palestinians have the right to decide their own destiny. Based on an interview that I saw on the news with a leader of Hamas right after the election took place, I really think that Hamas is aware of this truth. The guy being interviewed seemed extremely wary of saying that the destruction of Israel was the goal of Hamas. I think that Hamas will, in its own self interest, reform over time so that other countries will recognize its legitimacy. In the same way, I believe that we have to accept election results in Iraq whether or not that democracy turns out officials that the United States supports. It is up to Iraqis to decide their future. However, I think that a democracy favors moderate voices and that Iraq will ultimately serve as a model for democracy and freedom in the Middle East.
Comment by Kerry — 2/22/2006 @ 4:21 pm
Archangel, I would be astonished if anyone approved of the outcome of every democratic election. One key element in a democracy is that the people whom lose an election, focus their efforts towards winning the next one instead of resorting to violence or coercion.
Quite frankly, Hamas was more in line with what the Palestinian people wanted and now we will see if Hamas can effectively govern, deliver all of their promises, and maintain popular support.
Kerry, some Americans might use qualifying statement to say what type of American they are, but America is still one nation.
What I think HB was trying to get at is that Iraq is in some ways three separate nations governed by one state.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 2/22/2006 @ 5:38 pm
I have to say I am absolutely amazed by this post. I do not think we all have to stand behind Bush about everything… and we DO need to think about the issues! But we need to be sensitive about it. As a military brat and girlfriend, I have to say it hurts to think that Americans dont believe in what our men are doing! Again that doesnt mean we dont think about the issues- in fact, its probably more important with so much at stake. I just think we need to remember that its easy to sit at home in the comfort of our frats and dorms and criticize without remembering the guys actually DOING the work! Morale is Powerful! And war is a time to rally around our country - not doubt it!
Comment by Tiffany — 2/22/2006 @ 8:09 pm
I do not doubt our soldiers or the virtue of our country.
The decision to wage war is entirely a civilian, political one. As we must always remember the sacrafices that these brave men and women make to execute the government’s will, it is also our responsibility as the constituents of the government to see that they are engaged in proper missions.
Once again, the Army did not choose this war, the civilians did.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 8:29 pm
My housing rent is going up (school housing), my buss fees are going up, I’m probably going to pay for some building that I will never use. My registration fees are going up, my loan rates are going p, my financial aid is going down, and we are spending $100s of billions of dollars to build schools in another country when it is not our business at ALL to be there in the first place! I had it!!!!! It has nothing to do with the military - it is the ultimately our elected officials that stay quite day-after-day afraid to tell this president that he is pulling this country down. Those &100 billions could be diverted to the US domestic economy instead of the Iraqi domestic economy. Did I forget to mention oil went up too? What happen to all those whackos telling me Bush went to war to steal the oil companies? What is happening to America?
Comment by what — 2/22/2006 @ 8:33 pm
Who’s the leader of the Exclusive Very Ignorant People Club
That’s made for you and me
M-I-C-K-E-Y K-L-E-I-N
Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You’re as welcome as can be
M-I-C-K-E-Y K-L-E-I-N
Mickey Klein!
Mickey Klein!
Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!
Come along and sing a song
And join the jamboree!
M-I-C-K-E-Y K-L-E-I-N
Mickey Klein Exclusive Very Ignorant People Club
We’ll have fun
We’ll be new faces
High! High! High! High!
We’ll do things and
We’ll go places
All around the world, like Iraq
We’ll go marching in protest of the new schools and elections
Who’s the leader of the Exclusive Very Ignorant People Club
That’s made for you and me
M-I-C-K-E-Y K-L-E-I-N
Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You’re as welcome as can be
M-I-C-K-E-Y K-L-E-I-N
Mickey Klein!
Mickey Klein!
Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!
Come along and sing a song
And join the jamboree!
M-I-C-K-E-Y K-L-E-I-N
Comment by Chimmy — 2/22/2006 @ 9:24 pm
Very graceful of you.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 9:29 pm
Now now you dont know what her voice sounds like
Comment by Tiffany — 2/22/2006 @ 9:35 pm
I wish I was clever enough to respond in verse, but I would much rather plead that this debate remain civilized. We’re all reasonable people.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 9:37 pm
I acknowledge that
I wrote those words
like an ice skater
smoothly, gracefully
flowing across the untouched ice,
untouched by the human condition
untouched by people
untouched by…
you.
Comment by Chimmy — 2/22/2006 @ 9:38 pm
So what about my position strikes you as ignorant?
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 9:40 pm
when i said untouched by you i meant untouched by your stupid thoughts
Comment by Chimmy — 2/22/2006 @ 9:41 pm
You indeed are untouched by my stupid thoughts.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 9:43 pm
Ignorant: Talking about a country that you have never been to as if you have been to it and making the same arguments as are on liberal news stations.
P.S. Chimmy will never post anything ever again.
Comment by Chimmy — 2/22/2006 @ 9:45 pm
I never pretended I have been to Iraq. I use the same level of information that the vaste majority of the people involved in the debate use, the information available from the media.
Comment by mickeyk — 2/22/2006 @ 9:49 pm
Chimmy, you are hilarious, creative, and brilliant.
Comment by Kerry — 2/22/2006 @ 9:49 pm
If one wants to draw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, I think it’s possible to take things a step further and draw parallels between what’s festering in Iran, and Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia. Unfortunately, I think it’s only a matter of time …
Comment by Fresh Prince — 2/22/2006 @ 10:44 pm
A moot point to make - Iraq and Vietnam, aren’t compeltely the same in terms of the inurgency, a concept that the liberal media tries to engrain in people’s heads. The insurgency was significantly worse in Vietnam, although the enemy combatants weren’t dressed up weaing bombs.
An argument that the libreal media has tried to make (I blogged this in October in Res Ipsa - search for it if youre interested) to make is the parallels between what supplies the insurgents - namely the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Vietnam and the Euphrates Ratline along the Syrian border:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/weekinreview/05burn.html?ex=1275624000&en=2c1cb17cfa003cd1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
“That is the backdrop to one of the most important - and, so far, undecided - campaigns of the Iraqi conflict: the American drive to close off insurgent infiltration routes that run into the Iraqi heartland down the Euphrates River corridor. From Husayba on the Syrian frontier through Qaim and the sand-blown towns of Rawa, Haditha, Asad and Hit, onward through Ramadi and Falluja to Baghdad, the corridor has become the Ho Chi Minh trail of this war.”
This argument has several fatal mistakes in its asusmptions, which is often typical of political work in the libreal media.
Namely,
Iraq is much more favorable to air and ground intervention, unlike to triple canopy and rough jungle that existed on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The Euphrates ratline is wholly contained within Iraq, whereas the Ho Chi Minh trail went into Laos
The ratline does not have a series of ‘branches’ unlike the one in Vietnam – it is a single entity that extends along the Euphrates.
There are no legal restrictions on US forces to interdict the Euphrates ratline, and international law does not prevent hot pursuit into Syria (hot pursuit has been delayed for political reasons but is not off the table).
The scope of the Euphrates ratline is nowhere near that of the Ho Chi Minh Trail; there are no extensive facilities available to the insurgents.
The scale (volume and nature of the materiel) passing along ratline is nothing like the quality and quantity of military equipment and entire military units that flowed along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
I do think, however, that the longer we wait in Iraq, will be more of a burden on us. One thing to consider is to help train the Iraqi Police and National Guard up to speed, lay down the rule of law, and THEN send our troops home. This war has shown us that such wars can become quagmires, and we need to think a lot more before getting into any of them (and reform our intelligence agencies for that matter). Ultimatley if the Iraqis need peacekeeprs, we should train Middle EAstern people to do the job, so they have similar people of their own ethnicities doing the job.
Comment by Fresh Prince — 2/22/2006 @ 11:15 pm
For some reason, it keeps bothering me; the shar’iah and democracy are not compatible. Think twice if the Muslims will disregard their ‘law’ for a foreign injection of another’s.
This war has taught us nothing. We already knew this before going in – but some had fantasies because they couldn’t distinguish reality from unreality. And that includes the smartest women in America – Hillary who voted for the military funding of the operation. What does that tell ya? We are in bad shape here.
Comment by what — 2/22/2006 @ 11:56 pm
Well I think the more pertinent question is whether the Shariah is compatable with civil society. There are arguments on both sides of this issue.
I think the fundamental problem is the divisions amongst the Sunnis, the Shi’iites, and the Kurds that is preventing a reasonable degree of civil society from taking place.
If you’re interested do a JStor search in some academic journals. There’s an interesting paper by Tessler from Michigan on this (April 2002).
Comment by Fresh Prince — 2/23/2006 @ 8:36 am
“Chimmy, you are hilarious, creative, and brilliant.
Comment by Kerry”
Cal Pat people have really standards apparently! Ha.
I love those “liberal media” comments. Lord, sometimes I wish that were true. It certainly would make it easier to be a liberal in America. Alas, the reality is the media is not liberally biased.
What do all think about the recent Mosque bombing? Apparently, some genuinely think this may cause an all-out civil war in Iraq. That, I imagine, would be Bad©.
Comment by Archangel — 2/23/2006 @ 10:31 am
* See what happens when you don’t pay attention to simple grammar.
“Chimmy, you are hilarious, creative, and brilliant.
Comment by Kerry”
Cal Pat people have really LOW standards apparently. Much better.
Comment by Archangel — 2/23/2006 @ 10:32 am
“Alas the reality is the media is not biased.”
If that’s what you really think, then take a look at one example - Mr. Rather …
http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp
The problems we have in Iraq are probably the biggest failure of this administration. Senators McCain and Hagel have argued that we should’ve sent in more troops from the very beginning, so we could have taken over areas where terrorists were able to regroup. Senator McCain has also argued from his won experiences, that the insurgency in Iraq is different as it exsits mostly around the Sunni Triangle, whereas in Vietnam it was far more widespread and more out of control.
In fact around this time into the Vietnam War, Diem was assiasinated. Iraq is far more stable in that sense.
Now I fully agree with most reasonbable people, we’re not successful in Iraq, this will be the most embarassing global defeat since Vietnam.
Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under Nixon and Ford once remarked: “For me, the tragedy of Vietnam was the divisions that occurred in the United States that made it, in the end, impossible to achieve an outcome that was compatible with the sacrifices that had been made …” Any war will be like this, however. In fact, this contradicts the defintion of classical just war, jus ad bellum, which specifies that there exist a reasonable degree of commensurability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war
Wikipedia calls it “proportionality”
Comment by Fresh Prince — 2/23/2006 @ 2:10 pm
You pointed to ONE example of this liberal bias. How about an ENTIRE NEWS organization, Fox News, that is devoted to tilting news to the right? Or Talk radio that is dominated by right-wing pundits? Or Super-well funded right-wing think tanks?
Honest study after hones study, coming out places like journalism schools, have shown that that the media does not have a liberal bias. They have a “in-power” bias, a “let’s make some money” bias, but certainly not a liberal bias.
http://joc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/4/133
“A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies containing data concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948. Types of bias considered were gatekeeping bias, which is the preference for selecting stories from one party or the other; coverage bias, which considers the relative amounts of coverage each party receives; and statement bias, which focuses on the favorability of coverage toward one party or the other. On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in newsmagazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.”
I for one believe this comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are just plain stupid. They aren’t the same situations.
I think what is also important is that we acknowledge the shadiness that lead us to war. People too often gloss over how we got into this war, and the continually shifting rational for why we were there. Let’s face it people, those soldiers are not fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. They aren’t fighting for American democracy or even to protect America. They are fighting to establish a fledgling democracy in the hopes that this will begin a chain reaction in the region. Now, at least. It’s not wrong to acknowledge that things are difficult and that we probably didn’t need to go to war right now, but once there, we have to do what we can do make the place as stable as possible.
When you can finally get past these senseless analogies, then maybe we can get started on serious debate as to what the best course of action is. Leaving right now would be a bad thing, I think. But are Americans really willing to stick it out, as long as it takes?
Are the conservatives on this board willing to let their logic go forward, and say that ANY country run by a dictator or corrupt, evil government deserves to be overthrown? Certainly, everyone of you who “full supports the war effort” and its ideals would be behind an effort to go to war in Africa to bring it democracy, if necessary, no? Certainly, you’d be willing to enlist to prove that you support those efforts, right?
Comment by Archangel — 2/23/2006 @ 3:41 pm
“Honest study after hones study, coming out places like journalism schools, have shown that that the media does not have a liberal bias.”
Uh… dude… seriously…
Comment by Beetle — 2/23/2006 @ 3:57 pm
[1] That’s an interesting meta-analysis; however, the crux of the arguemnt about there being a liberal media bias started recently (since around the 1980’s). I woulnd’t be surprised if the media was significantly more balanced back then.
Read Goldberg’s Bias, which gives inside accounts as to how CBS misrepresents infomration to illustrate their arguemtns.
Fox News is the ONLY major conservative news network around, outnumbered liberal ones everywhere.
[2] I do acknowledge the misleading intelligence that led us to war, and am seriously worried that the adminstration helped abuse and beefed up the intelligence. (The 10 downing street memo gives the argumetn that England and the United States decided to go to war before they actually did). I can’t evalualte these claims, however.
There’s also the fact that the different departments within the CIA communicate independently, and as a result, this screwed up the intelligence because different departments weren’t able to corroborate or nullify possible contradictory intelligence.
[3] I’m personally an isolationist and don’t care about spreading democracy and human rights. That’s why I dont’ think we should be intervening anywhere, which is part of the reason why I think President Bush is too liberal to be considered a conservative. (In addition, to his domestic policies being too liberal as well, but that’s another story.)
Comment by Fresh Prince — 2/23/2006 @ 4:00 pm
Archangel,
If you believe there is no liberal media bias, that is because of the times that the media back the Democrats on an issue where you view the party as not being liberal enough.
“Are the conservatives on this board willing to let their logic go forward, and say that ANY country run by a dictator or corrupt, evil government deserves to be overthrown?”
Sure, ANY country run by an evil government deserves to be overthrown.
“Certainly, everyone of you who “full supports the war effort” and its ideals would be behind an effort to go to war in Africa to bring it democracy, if necessary, no?”
No, it is not the same situation as Iraq and you know it. All you provided is that the government was not a democracy. That is not the same thing as a totalitarian state which has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people.
“Certainly, you’d be willing to enlist to prove that you support those efforts, right?”
Well, that is one of the most obnoxious cop-outs. Similar reasoning would be that since Clinton and his supporters didn’t want to enlist in the military, we shouldn’t have gone into Haiti, Bosnia, or Kosovo either. I suppose you might want to limit voting in the United States to only those whom are willing to serve in the military, and establish a society like in Starship Troopers.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 2/23/2006 @ 4:32 pm
bully is as bully does
http://www.devilducky.com/media/42153/
wait for it, hahaha
Comment by HB — 2/23/2006 @ 5:56 pm
“Honest study after hones study, coming out places like journalism schools, have shown that that the media does not have a liberal bias.”
Uh… dude… seriously…” - I am.
FP: http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200411050005
Top Ten media failings in 2004 - All items showing how in the 2004 election, the media really dropped the ball and portrayed Kerry in a much more negative light then they did Bush.
The same analysis has been done about the 2000 election, and again, studies showed that news was better for Bush than for Gore.
“The Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where the prevailing opinions are aired and tested, policymakers state their cases, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground. Both sides have their say and face probing questions. Or so you would think.
In fact, as this study reveals, conservative voices significantly outnumber progressive voices on the Sunday talk shows. Media Matters for America conducted a content analysis of ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton’s second term, President George W. Bush’s first term, and the year 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so.”
“Fox News is the ONLY major conservative news network around, outnumbered liberal ones everywhere.”
Look at how ridiculous that sounds! “outnumbered by liberal ones everywhere.” There are NO liberal versions or alternatives like Fox News. Indeed, because of its ratings, CNN and MSNBC have gone out of their way to make their networks more “Fox-like.” Fox news is not balanced by any other network or cable news company.
As a Liberal, I can assure you, Bush is not one. What’s odd to me, is that you might find more isolationist comfort on the Blue side of the Legislative aisle these days. It’s been a weird couple of years, seeing some Democrats who once fought for America doing all it can to help out the world saying now that we shouldn’t helping, however possible. Weird.
Comment by Archangel — 2/24/2006 @ 9:55 am
“If you believe there is no liberal media bias, that is because of the times that the media back the Democrats on an issue where you view the party as not being liberal enough.”
So, what I think you’re tying to say is: 1) Democrats say X on issue A, when I think they should say XL (for more liberal). 2) The media “backs” the Dems by saying X is correct. 3) I believe the media is not liberally biased because they say X instead of XL. That it?
The problems with your statement are: 1) I do feel I have a pretty good sense for what is truly liberal or progressive, so that if I happen to disagree with the mainstream Democratic view on an issue, I can happily say that the MSDV is not actually liberal, but likely, mainstream or moderate. 2) The number of times that a traditional media outlet actually says that the Dems or Repubs or “correct” on an issue are few and far between! They almost never “back” either party expressly. At best, you’ll see them say, “Well, most people believe X” while not mentioning that some people believe Y instead, or saying “Well, most people don’t believe in Y,” even when more people believe in Y than in X. That’s hardly evidence of a widespread bias, however.
Basically, if the media presents a Democratic view that I think is not liberal enough, then I think that is evidence that the view is not in fact liberal. If that is true, then how can the media be liberally biased if the are “backing” a mainstream, Democratic view?
The only way you can argue that they are liberally biased under this view is too say that my views of what constitutes “liberal” views is skewed by the fact that I am a Godless, Communist Pinko Hippie Pansy Liberal, or something like that. That I am So Uber-Liberal that I don’t notice that the Democratic Party is actually Super-Liberal.
The fact of the matter is, however, that is not true. The Democratic Party is not Super-Liberal. Why do you think they piss off liberals so often?
Let’s think about this. Say you’re right, and the media is liberally biased. From that, we can say that the populace who watch and use the media should also be more liberal than not, or if they are not, then the media is not as effective at determining what people believe. And if the media is not that good at determining what people believe, then why should you care if the media is liberally biased, because people will just ignore them anyway.
So, as it turns out, America is not a liberal bastion. The Liberal Media© has failed us Uber-Liberals by failing to turn Middle-America and Orange County into Norway. Research tells us that the best that the media can do is influence what we think is important, not what we actually believe. So, if this nasty Liberal Media has failed to influence America into believing our Communist Ideals, then WHY do you CARE at ALL if the media is liberally biased? It doesn’t do anything worthwhile! We still lost the 2000 and 2004 election for goodness sake! Some liberal media.
A couple of interesting facts though: 1) Most journalists are in fact registered Democrats. 2) Most are socially liberal. 3) Most journalists are economically conservative, in fact, more so than the average person. That makes sense because many of the traditional media big wigs make tons of money. There are also much more important biases that the media suffers from: 1) Corporate biases, 2) “Horse-race” biases, 3) “Process story” biases, 4) Easy story biases, etc…, that are much more important than liberal or conservative biases.
“Sure, ANY country run by an evil government deserves to be overthrown.” “That is not the same thing as a totalitarian state which has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people.” Somalia? Rwanda? Darfur? Ivory Coast? Central African Republic? Go to the BBC’s Africa news page, you’ll find countless examples of corrupt governments starving or outright killing their people. Warlords, drug-lords, famine, death, AIDs, these are constants in African life. The number of people killed by Saddam pail in comparison.
“Similar reasoning would be that since Clinton and his supporters didn’t want to enlist in the military, we shouldn’t have gone into Haiti, Bosnia, or Kosovo either. I suppose you might want to limit voting in the United States to only those whom are willing to serve in the military, and establish a society like in Starship Troopers.” Actually, that isn’t similar reasoning. You are saying “Clinton and his supporters” and I’m saying “You and chicken-hawks like you.” =o) But seriously, there is a difference between saying what you said and what I’m saying. I mean common Americans who are so gun-ho about the war and can so easily and consistently say “We should stay in Iraq no matter what. Wars have costs and people die. It’s time we acknowledge that.” It’s easy for someone like you or others to say that when we really haven’t felt the true costs of warfare. I’m certainly not saying that because Bush didn’t go to war that we shouldn’t go to war. That’s just dumb.
Using troops is a terrible decision, one that we should always agonize over. War should be the last resort, when no other option remains. That said, I believe America, as one of the greatest powers in the world, and the supposed beacon of Freedom and Democracy, should be serious about its duty or just not take it up.
Finally, I know someone at school who has argued that the Starship Troopers idea would be great because it would make the average voter much more aware of what she is actually voting on if there are actual costs associated being able to vote. Maybe more people would take voting seriously if they had to go into the military. I’m not sure I buy it, personally, but it’s a thought.
Comment by Archangel — 2/24/2006 @ 10:30 am
Because the people IN the military so strongly oppose this war.
Your argument seems to go as follows; “I’m right. Therefore, I’m right.” The fact that nothing at all bugs you about a study that the media isn’t biased coming from journalism schools is pretty strong evidence that your “facts” about what is and is not liberal are not much to go on.
Comment by Beetle — 2/24/2006 @ 10:49 am
“I believe the media is not liberally biased because they say X instead of XL. That it?”
Most reasonable explanation I could come up with.
“Basically, if the media presents a Democratic view that I think is not liberal enough, then I think that is evidence that the view is not in fact liberal. If that is true, then how can the media be liberally biased if the are “backing” a mainstream, Democratic view?”
If the media always puts out either a Democratic or liberal view, you could easily view them as not being liberal since they sometimes back the Democratic party instead.
“The fact of the matter is, however, that is not true. The Democratic Party is not Super-Liberal. Why do you think they piss off liberals so often?”
Well, that supports the explanation I offered. You view not only the maintsream media, but the Democratic party also as not being liberal.
” then WHY do you CARE at ALL if the media is liberally biased? It doesn’t do anything worthwhile!”
A liberal media bias means that the country is receiving bad information, even if enough of the people are still able to overcome it during presidential elections.
“Somalia? Rwanda? Darfur? Ivory Coast? Central African Republic? Go to the BBC’s Africa news page, you’ll find countless examples of corrupt governments starving or outright killing their people. Warlords, drug-lords, famine, death, AIDs, these are constants in African life. The number of people killed by Saddam pail in comparison.”
You stated “ANY country run by a dictator”. There are plenty of dictatorships in the world which do not commit atrocities and many are even trying to institute democratic reforms. If you wanted to only talk about specific countries like Ruwanda and the Sudan, you should have done so and not made a very vague and general statement.
“I’m certainly not saying that because Bush didn’t go to war that we shouldn’t go to war. That’s just dumb.”
Well actually, that sounds a bit more intelligent than what you were arguing, namely that the people who don’t fight in wars have no right to support one.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 2/24/2006 @ 1:13 pm
Journalism is also a self selected profession. Ninety percent of the workers are self proclaimed liberals; the residual bias is undeniable no matter how intent they are on maintaining the ethos of objectivity.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 2/24/2006 @ 1:24 pm
“Because the people IN the military so strongly oppose this war.
Your argument seems to go as follows; “I’m right. Therefore, I’m right.” The fact that nothing at all bugs you about a study that the media isn’t biased coming from journalism schools is pretty strong evidence that your “facts” about what is and is not liberal are not much to go on.”
Well, I know it may seem silly to think that research from a graduate level department in a major university can possibly be objective, but you know, I’m a silly person. Seriously, think about the logic of your statement. Either 1) you are saying that journalism schools in particular are some of the most biased places on the planet; and 2) Their bias means they cannot produce objective work, or 3) Your logic implies that because journalism schools tend to be more “liberal” (a difficult thing to measure) they can’t produce good research, the same would apply to every other major professional school or department in the majority of the world’s best universities. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Brown, Berkeley, Virginia, Michigan: All of these schools tend to be dominated by more liberal academia, whether in law, business, journalism, etc. What you’re implying is that none of these schools or their departments could produce objective research. In fact, no major, top school can, because more conservative schools like Chicago would be tainted by their conservative biases.
It’s generally not worth it to argue with people like you, but like I said, I’m silly, so I’ll run with it. I’m saying that someone who won’t look at my facts because they think journalism schools are too liberal, even when the evidence I provide is not from journalism schools, couldn’t argue their way out of a paper bag. Arguing that the evidence I cite (or the research of those journalism schools) is inadequate because of your view of journalism schools is just dumb. Sorry.
Comment by Archangel — 2/24/2006 @ 2:36 pm
Would you ask the Republican Party to analyze the policies of the Republican Party? If not, why would you ask journalists-in-training to analyze the work of journalists? Journalists will not see bias in their work. People in journalism schools will similarly not see bias in journalistic work, because they’re the same people. I would, for instance, not be convinced if a major law school released a study that lawyers behave ethically. When the extent of a study appears to merely count the number of faces that have appeared, they aren’t getting at the issue of how journalists frame the world for their audience.
Comment by Beetle — 2/24/2006 @ 2:55 pm
“If the media always puts out either a Democratic or liberal view, you could easily view them as not being liberal since they sometimes back the Democratic party instead.”
Well, this is an easy enough argument to debunk. First, you start off with “If the media always…,” which you provide no evidence even happens. But, assuming that this is true, we’ll move on. If the media ALWAYS put out (and what do you mean by this anyway?) out EITHER a liberal OR Democratic view (which are not always mutually exclusive), I STILL wouldn’t see the media as not being liberal enough. Percentages of Democratic v. Liberal views would come into play at this point. Moreover, I wouldn’t even want a media that put out 100% or 75% or 50% or even 25% liberal v. Democratic views. I don’t want a media that pushes one agenda over another, even if that agenda is my own. That’s not what the media SHOULD be about.
“Well, that supports the explanation I offered. You view not only the maintsream media, but the Democratic party also as not being liberal.” I prefer to use the term traditional media, but yeh, that is exactly it, in a sense. I don’t think the media or Democratic party is TOO liberal. I think portions of Democratic views are liberal and I think that some journalists hold socially liberal (and sometimes economically liberal) views. But the fact that I’m more liberal than traditional media or the Democratic party standard person doesn’t mean that I can’t honestly believe the media isn’t liberally biased. Otherwise, I could just as easily say that because you are so conservative, that you don’t think the media is conservative enough, therefore, the media is not liberally biased.
“A liberal media bias means that the country is receiving bad information, even if enough of the people are still able to overcome it during presidential elections.” Were that true, I would completely agree. Nonetheless, I still agree in part. I think that people ARE receiving bad information AND that it directly affects how they vote. Moreover, I think that, in part, that bad information cost both Gore and Kerry victories. In Gore’s case, the RNC talking points about him being a lying robot were consistently and incorrectly perpetuated by the traditional media. In Kerry’s case, the Swift Boat thing and how long the traditional media took to disprove it was a tragedy.
Like you, I think the traditional media is not serving the interests of the people enough. Unlike you, I think that is not due to liberal biases, but other, more important structural biases, and research bears that out. The traditional media is obsessed with “objectivity,” so much so, that even when there is a clear answer to a question, they think they must provide some sort of balance. This necessity to become “fair and balanced,” which is code for more conservative, is corrupting our traditional media. They are, for the most part, spineless.
You know what you really should read is “All the President’s Spin,” by the guys who ran the spinsanity.org website. It’s a great portrayal at how the traditional media really has failed in so many important ways. Most importantly, these guys spare no one in their critiques, consistently pointing out when both Republicans and Democrats are misleading us. You can find out more information through Google Books or probably just go to Doe, get it off of Amazon, or maybe the public library.
In so far as I implied that “every dictator,” my apologies. What countries are you referring to though?
“Well actually, that sounds a bit more intelligent than what you were arguing, namely that the people who don’t fight in wars have no right to support one.” - I agree, that’s pretty dumb. Fact is, I didn’t say that. What I DID say was this, “I mean common Americans who are so gun-ho about the war and can so easily and consistently say “We should stay in Iraq no matter what. Wars have costs and people die. It’s time we acknowledge that.” It’s easy for someone like you or others to say that when we really haven’t felt the true costs of warfare.” I certainly didn’t say that people shouldn’t support the war if they haven’t been in one. Like you said, that’d be dumb.
Comment by Archangel — 2/24/2006 @ 4:07 pm
“Journalism is also a self selected profession. Ninety percent of the workers are self proclaimed liberals; the residual bias is undeniable no matter how intent they are on maintaining the ethos of objectivity.”
That’s an interesting statistic. Where’d you get it?
What you’re arguing then is that these liberal journalists are unable to write an objective and accurate piece of research? Wouldn’t the same be true of conservative journalists? Does that make sense to you?
Comment by Archangel — 2/24/2006 @ 4:09 pm
“Would you ask the Republican Party to analyze the policies of the Republican Party? If not, why would you ask journalists-in-training to analyze the work of journalists? Journalists will not see bias in their work. People in journalism schools will similarly not see bias in journalistic work, because they’re the same people. I would, for instance, not be convinced if a major law school released a study that lawyers behave ethically. When the extent of a study appears to merely count the number of faces that have appeared, they aren’t getting at the issue of how journalists frame the world for their audience.”
Yes, I would indeed ask the Republican Party to analyze the policies of their own party. Being self-reflective is a good thing, even (and especially I’d say) at the organizational level. It would be stupid for the members of the Republican party or the party itself (which really is just its members and leaders) NOT to analyze their own policies. Wouldn’t you agree?
Do you REALLY believe that journalism students CANNOT judge and critique other journalists? Or see bias in their own work or the work of others? Because they are the SAME PEOPLE? Do you see how silly that sounds? They are NOT the same people. They just aren’t.
What if a law school released a study that said 76% of lawyers behaved in an ethical manner? Or 35%? Would it matter at all? It seems like what you are saying is that these professional schools are unable to 1) Say anything bad about their profession, and 2) Say anything good about their own profession, because who can trust them?
“When the extent of a study appears to merely count the number of faces that have appeared, they aren’t getting at the issue of how journalists frame the world for their audience.” They DON’T just count the faces. And moreover, political science research has told us what effect the media has on people. It can frame what people think is important, but generally, cannot tell them what or how to think about an issue.
Comment by Archangel — 2/24/2006 @ 4:23 pm
And if the Republican Party came back and said “Hey, looks like our policies are good,” would you support those policies? The fact that you didn’t take this obvious logical step on your own to reach the actual point is pretty telling.
Professional schools can say plenty about their profession. But they can’t say much about things external to their profession. Identification of biases depends on being able to see the bias. But being biased in the media would occur because these people cannot see the bias. Therefore, media-types would not be able to see their own bias, so they aren’t going to be useful sources for finding out whether they are biased or not.
Comment by Beetle — 2/24/2006 @ 4:37 pm
“Well, this is an easy enough argument to debunk. First, you start off with “If the media always…,” which you provide no evidence even happens. But, assuming that this is true, we’ll move on.”
I was explaining how the media could be even more biased than it already is, and some people would still view it as not having a liberal bias.
“But the fact that I’m more liberal than traditional media or the Democratic party standard person doesn’t mean that I can’t honestly believe the media isn’t liberally biased.”
Well actually, I was asserting that you believed there was no liberal media bias.
“Otherwise, I could just as easily say that because you are so conservative, that you don’t think the media is conservative enough, therefore, the media is not liberally biased.”
You could say it, you would still be wrong, and the final clause in your argument: “therefore, the media is not liberally biased.” doesn’t even follow logically from the previous statements.
“In Kerry’s case, the Swift Boat thing and how long the traditional media took to disprove it was a tragedy.”
The traditional media tried to ignore the Swift Boat Veterans as long as they could, until Kerry’s campaign started attacking them. The traditional media then unsuccesfully attacked the Swift Boat Veterans in a vain attempt to convince the public they were lying.
The traditional media also attempted an election surprise of obviously forged documents to get Kerry elected.
“The traditional media is obsessed with “objectivity,” so much so, that even when there is a clear answer to a question, they think they must provide some sort of balance. This necessity to become “fair and balanced,” which is code for more conservative, is corrupting our traditional media. They are, for the most part, spineless.”
All this sounds like to me is you want the media to relentlessly attack anyone who happens to disagree with you. And if they don’t, then you view them as cowards who aren’t doing their jobs.
“In so far as I implied that “every dictator,” my apologies. What countries are you referring to though?”
referring to as what? If you mean ones that don’t slaughter their citizens: Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Brunei, UAE, and Nepal, come to mind.
What you actually said was:
“Certainly, you’d be willing to enlist to prove that you support those efforts, right?”
A fair interpretation of your statement is:
“namely that the people who don’t fight in wars have no right to support one.”.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 2/24/2006 @ 5:42 pm
I think Archangel probably realizes that s/he is backed up against a wall. The most ridiculous justification I have ever seen came from Archangel:
“Yes, I would indeed ask the Republican Party to analyze the policies of their own party. Being self-reflective is a good thing, even (and especially I’d say) at the organizational level. It would be stupid for the members of the Republican party or the party itself (which really is just its members and leaders) NOT to analyze their own policies. Wouldn’t you agree?”
I’m sure self-analysis is useful on some organizational level, but the issue is: would you trust their own assessment? What if the Republican party assessed itself and came to the conclusion that there were no unethical lobbying issues present in the Party? Would you, Archangel, accept that assessment based on the assumption that Republicans are fully capable of objective research?
If the answer to that last question is “yes”, then you’re a giant idiot. If the answer is “no”, you’ve admitted that your argument is bullshit.
Comment by cw — 2/25/2006 @ 1:05 am
“And if the Republican Party came back and said “Hey, looks like our policies are good,” would you support those policies? The fact that you didn’t take this obvious logical step on your own to reach the actual point is pretty telling.”
Like I said, I want self-reflection. That doesn’t mean I would support those policies, but I would expect HONEST self-reflection. I think many Republicans are capable of doing so, and can ask themselves, “Is my party representing my beliefs and values. Do I agree with the party?”
Where your analogy falls on its face is trying to compare the Republican Party to journalists. As another thread has so eloquently, it is a party’s job to put its best face/policies forward and to minimize the look of internal problems. This, however, is not the job of the journalist.
“Professional schools can say plenty about their profession. But they can’t say much about things external to their profession. Identification of biases depends on being able to see the bias. But being biased in the media would occur because these people cannot see the bias. Therefore, media-types would not be able to see their own bias, so they aren’t going to be useful sources for finding out whether they are biased or not.”
So, law schools, business schools, journalism schools, etc…, can’t say much about the external world? They can’t comment on the state of politics, or law, or business? Or comment on the state of blogs?
Being able to ID biases depends on being able to see biases huh? Doesn’t that sound a bit circular? You’re saying that one journalist won’t be able to point out another journalists’ bias? And vice versa?
Do you see what you are writing? “Journalists can’t see their own biases because they can’t see their own biases.” Does that make sense to you? In case you don’t believe me, here’s what you wrote: “because these people cannot see the bias… Therefore, media-types would not be able to see their own bias” . Again, why shouldn’t one journalist be able to ID another journalist’s bias? They are not the same person, and quite probably, may not even have the same agenda or beliefs about journalism.
Comment by Archangel — 2/25/2006 @ 10:13 am
“I was explaining how the media could be even more biased than it already is, and some people would still view it as not having a liberal bias.” I see what you mean, but to be fair, you haven’t even provided evidence that it is that biased.
“Well actually, I was asserting that you believed there was no liberal media bias.” I could have saved you the trouble. I’ve told you that I don’t believe there is a significant liberal bias, and that even if there is a minor one with regards to social issues, that it is often outshone by other biases.
“You could say it, you would still be wrong, and the final clause in your argument: “therefore, the media is not liberally biased.” doesn’t even follow logically from the previous statements.” My point exactly! Turn around what you’ve said to me: “If you believe there is liberal media bias, that is because of the times that the media back the Republicans on an issue where you view the party as not being conservative enough.” It’s exactly the same, silly argument, just in reverse.
“The traditional media tried to ignore the Swift Boat Veterans as long as they could, until Kerry’s campaign started attacking them. The traditional media then unsuccesfully attacked the Swift Boat Veterans in a vain attempt to convince the public they were lying.” Wow. I see we are going to have some issues here then. First and foremost, they were lying. The Navy finished a report on the issue and found that Kerry rightfully earned his metals.
“A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry’s former crewmen, and by Navy records.” http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html . Check that out, if you really want to know what happened.
“The traditional media also attempted an election surprise of obviously forged documents to get Kerry elected.” - That was CBS’ fault, and other traditional media outlets rightfully beat them up for it. Try again.
“All this sounds like to me is you want the media to relentlessly attack anyone who happens to disagree with you. And if they don’t, then you view them as cowards who aren’t doing their jobs.” Nope, not one bit. I want them to do their job of investigative reporting, honestly, and without political concern that some will find them either too liberal or too conservative. The recommendations out of “All the President’s Spin” for how the media should operate are great. John Stewart even has solid recommendations. Shows like Crossfire really do hurt more than help.
Ha! Fair interpretation indeed. My sincerest apologies if you misread that statement, but that’s not what it meant, as I have already stated. It would be stupid to say that one can only support the war if one was in the military.
Comment by Archangel — 2/25/2006 @ 10:36 am
Okay, Archangel, since you can’t seem to read, I’ll try it in different words. A media bias would imply that the folks in the media fail to be objective because they cannot see that the things they are saying are biased. This is how bias works. It blinds people to the truth. It is thus impossible for a biased person to identify her own bias. There are two possibilities:
1) The media is biased. Because of this, it cannot see when the media is biased, and will conclude that the media is not biased.
2) The media is not biased. Because of this, it can see when the media is biased, and will conclude that the media is not biased.
Note that the conclusion is the same whether or not the media is biased, so when the media concludes “we are not biased,” it means nothing.
I’m sure some individuals can see some bias, but when a collective journalistic effort is put into finding it, you will get something that reflects collective journalistic bias.
Comment by Beetle — 2/25/2006 @ 12:50 pm
Hey ArchAngel, good job not answering my questions (which was very different from the other questions you answered). Here it is again, let’s see if you can think up an answer this time.
“Yes, I would indeed ask the Republican Party to analyze the policies of their own party. Being self-reflective is a good thing, even (and especially I’d say) at the organizational level. It would be stupid for the members of the Republican party or the party itself (which really is just its members and leaders) NOT to analyze their own policies. Wouldn’t you agree?”
I’m sure self-analysis is useful on some organizational level, but the issue is: would you trust their own assessment? What if the Republican party assessed itself and came to the conclusion that there were no unethical lobbying issues present in the Party? Would you, Archangel, accept that assessment based on the assumption that Republicans are fully capable of objective research?
If the answer to that last question is “yes”, then you’re a giant idiot. If the answer is “no”, you’ve admitted that your argument is bullshit.
Comment by cw — 2/25/2006 @ 1:16 pm
“Okay, Archangel, since you can’t seem to read, I’ll try it in different words. A media bias would imply that the folks in the media fail to be objective because they cannot see that the things they are saying are biased. This is how bias works. It blinds people to the truth. It is thus impossible for a biased person to identify her own bias. There are two possibilities:” Ooh, getting nasty. I like that.
1) A media bias, if proved, which you’ve failed to do provide evidence for, can imply more than what you’ve stated: A) They are consciously biased (like Fox News); or B) They are unconsciously Biased (??);
Bias blinds people to the truth? A bit over the top aren’t we? Biases can also work not to blind people to the Jack Nicholson Truth© BUT to merely shade their perceptions of “Truth” or shade their interpretations of events or experiences. Just because someone has a liberal or conservative bias does not translate into them being unable to call a spade a spade!
I also take issue with your statement that one cannot identify one’s own biases. That’s what critical thinking and analysis are for. 1) A person certainly can ID their own biases if they are conscious; 2) Critical thinking/writing/analysis suggests that we can ID and account for our own individual biases.
As such, your “possibilities” are over-simplistic.
IF X (Media is biased), then Y (It can’t tell it’s biased), and thus Z (Media will conclude it is not biased). But if XN (Media is not biased), then YN (I can tell when it’s biased), and thus Z. You’re saying Z is irrelevant because Z is possible whether X or XN is true. Does that REALLY make sense to you?
Even in your over-simplistic example, it VERY MUCH matters whether X or XN is true, because it ideas to either Y or YN. So, if XN is true, then YN is true, and you MUST believe Z because of YN. According to your example, of course. You’re committing logically fallacies of the momentous proportions.
So why can’t three journalists get together and determine if a story, or even a network is biased? Especially if they work for a competing network?
Comment by Archangel — 2/25/2006 @ 1:16 pm
Um… We don’t see X, XN, Y, or YN. We only see Z. We will see Z regardless of whether X or XN is true. Therefore, the fact that we see Z doesn’t tell us whether X or XN is true, and that was the question we are trying to answer. Yes, that REALLY makes sense to me, as it does to anyone else.
We’re still waiting for you to address the other question that CW posed.
Comment by Beetle — 2/25/2006 @ 2:07 pm
“I’m sure self-analysis is useful on some organizational level, but the issue is: would you trust their own assessment? What if the Republican party assessed itself and came to the conclusion that there were no unethical lobbying issues present in the Party? Would you, Archangel, accept that assessment based on the assumption that Republicans are fully capable of objective research?” Again, love it when you guys play rough.
There is a HUGE difference between the Republican party and the role of a journalist, as many have already pointed out. A huge difference between the party and journalism schools, or other professional schools. Saying that the RP “assessed” itself and concluded that there were no unethical lobbying issues is far, far different than a group of journalism professors or communication professors conducting a study to determine to what extent the traditional media is liberally biased.
You’re mixing so many terms and arguments here, starting with bad analogies, that you’re arguments aren’t making any logical sense. You start off with the “Republican party” but then end up with “Republicans,” while making the assumption that “Republicans are fully capable of objective research.” Your analogy, like the one above, suffers from over-simplicity as well.
Comment by Anonymous — 2/25/2006 @ 3:59 pm
Well, that was a bullshit answer “Anonymous”. Archangel previously justified the use of the analogy, trying to make it fit his point. So let’s see him answer the question.
Again:
“Yes, I would indeed ask the Republican Party to analyze the policies of their own party. Being self-reflective is a good thing, even (and especially I’d say) at the organizational level. It would be stupid for the members of the Republican party or the party itself (which really is just its members and leaders) NOT to analyze their own policies. Wouldn’t you agree?”
I’m sure self-analysis is useful on some organizational level, but the issue is: would you trust their own assessment? What if the Republican party assessed itself and came to the conclusion that there were no unethical lobbying issues present in the Party? Would you, Archangel, accept that assessment based on the assumption that Republicans are fully capable of objective research?
If the answer to that last question is “yes”, then you’re a giant idiot. If the answer is “no”, you’ve admitted that your argument is bullshit.
Comment by cw — 2/25/2006 @ 4:10 pm
That previous post was me.
“Um… We don’t see X, XN, Y, or YN. We only see Z. We will see Z regardless of whether X or XN is true. Therefore, the fact that we see Z doesn’t tell us whether X or XN is true, and that was the question we are trying to answer. Yes, that REALLY makes sense to me, as it does to anyone else.
We’re still waiting for you to address the other question that CW posed.
We don’t see whether X, XN, Y, or YN are true? That’s ridiculous, I’d say. You state, “Note that the conclusion is the same whether or not the media is biased, so when the media concludes “we are not biased,” it means nothing.” When the TM (or more accurately, researchers) conclude Z, it DOES matter. Researchers can tell if the TM is X or XN, and even a lay person can tell Y or YN. And whether Y or YN is true matters a great deal, because if YN, then we MUST believe researchers or even the TM that Z is true.
Come to think of it, that really solves a lot. I never meant to say that it is the Traditional Media saying they are unbiased, but that researchers have said this doesn’t hold out, and where they are biased, more important issues determine how the TM frames issues and such. Arguing back and forth on whether the TM can honestly say they are unbiased is irrelevant. Crikey, I should have caught that earlier. Would have saved us time.
Comment by Archangel — 2/25/2006 @ 4:12 pm
Beetle, I can just repost what I wrote earlier, but I see that wouldn’t make you happy. I’ll try to do better. My Bad.
First, I never justified the use of the analogy. I thought it was a crappy one when I first saw it. Still do. It was your analogy, one, again, I might add, that doesn’t make any flippin’ sense. The RP doing self-analysis is NOT even REMOTELY the same as researchers conducting research on whether the TM is liberally biased or not. But, if you change the terms, like you did (my bad for not noticing soon enough) and say that the TM can’t possibly say that the TM is not liberally biased, I STILL take issue with your analogy because it STILL sucks. With the RP, you have one organization, so of course, self-analysis in this case would be more suspect. With the TM, you have several organizations, many of which don’t like each other, so that peer-analysis in that case would be more useful.
Comment by Archangel — 2/25/2006 @ 4:18 pm
What, do we need to shift it to “indivudal researchers who all vote Republican conclude that the Republican Party is ethical and etc. etc.”? They aren’t specifically part of the organization, so everything’s fine, right? They can be trusted, right?
Are you seriously arguing that researchers at journalism schools aren’t part of the traditional media?
Comment by Beetle — 2/25/2006 @ 4:34 pm
I’m saying that researchers at journalism schools and communication schools and political science departments are not apart of the TM. Yes, that is it. Many of those people have no direct contact with the likes of ABC News or CBS, or whatever.
You can’t honestly believe that the TM is EXACTLY the same as journalists. Many people who go to journalism schools end up in non-traditional media jobs; working blogs, online magazines, etc. You can’t just say that because a person goes to a journalism school they are automatically part of the TM. Moreover, that ignores how different organizations within the TM can be. And finally, you ignore professionals from non-journalism schools.
I wouldn’t even necessarily be bothered by researching from professionals who voted Republican, so long as their history showed them to be researchers of the honest and incorruptible nature.
Comment by Archangel — 2/25/2006 @ 5:55 pm
Archangel,
“I see what you mean, but to be fair, you haven’t even provided evidence that it is that biased.”
Enough people were already arguing about whether the media had a liberal bias or not. I had no interest in providing statistics of media bias, when you will continue to believe there is no bias, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
“I could have saved you the trouble. I’ve told you that I don’t believe there is a significant liberal bias, and that even if there is a minor one with regards to social issues, that it is often outshone by other biases.”
You could have, except you didn’t and chose to have an argument about it when you said, “doesn’t mean that I can’t honestly believe the media isn’t liberally biased.”
“My point exactly! Turn around what you’ve said to me: “If you believe there is liberal media bias, that is because of the times that the media back the Republicans on an issue where you view the party as not being conservative enough.” It’s exactly the same, silly argument, just in reverse.”
No, it’s not. Although it is a better analogy attempt than
your previous one.
“Wow. I see we are going to have some issues here then. First and foremost, they were lying. The Navy finished a report on the issue and found that Kerry rightfully earned his metals.”
Your response to how the traditional media tried to first ignore and then discredit the Swift Boat Veterans was to completely ignore the issue of media bias.
“That was CBS’ fault, and other traditional media outlets rightfully beat them up for it. Try again.”
CBS trying to put out forged documents to influence a presidential election alone is sufficient evidence for media bias. However, you don’t want to accept evidence of bias when it has been proven.
“All this sounds like to me is you want the media to relentlessly attack anyone who happens to disagree with you. And if they don’t, then you view them as cowards who aren’t doing their jobs.” Nope, not one bit.
What you stated:
“The traditional media is obsessed with “objectivity,” so much so, that even when there is a clear answer to a question, they think they must provide some sort of balance. This necessity to become “fair and balanced,” which is code for more conservative, is corrupting our traditional media. They are, for the most part, spineless.”
You assert that when someone disagrees with you, they are so clearly wrong that the media should not show their viewpoint. And any attempts to show views counter to your own would corrupt the media.
“Ha! Fair interpretation indeed. My sincerest apologies if you misread that statement, but that’s not what it meant, as I have already stated. It would be stupid to say that one can only support the war if one was in the military.”
It’s really difficult to interprate your statement as what you say it means. And most people whom make statements like you did, do not mean it the way you say you did.
Comment by Michael — 2/26/2006 @ 12:15 pm
“I had no interest in providing statistics of media bias, when you will continue to believe there is no bias, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.”
The evidence people provided consisted of B. Goldberg, who has his own axe to grind, and Dan Rather. I’d hardly say that is conclusive evidence. Regardless, I’d even be willing to say that one can find occasions of “liberal bias,” but that these are hardly as pervasive as some like to pretend.
“Honest study after hones study, coming out places like journalism schools, have shown that that the media does not have a liberal bias. They have a “in-power” bias, a “let’s make some money” bias, but certainly not a liberal bias.” That was from my second post in this particular blog. Had you read more carefully, I think you would have caught this. But there’s lot of information here, so I can see why you missed it.
“No, it’s not. Although it is a better analogy attempt than
your previous one.” How exactly is it different then? Please, do explain? I’d love to hear how you think it is better.
“Your response to how the traditional media tried to first ignore and then discredit the Swift Boat Veterans was to completely ignore the issue of media bias.” Ignore? THAT was their great failing, if anything. They didn’t ignore them; “But a Nexis search of print and TV sources for “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” produced 157 results for the three-month period between Swift Boat Veterans’ May 4 press conference and the August 4 ad release. As MMFA noted on May 4, Swift Boat Veterans founder John E. O’Neill appeared on the April 20 edition of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports — two weeks before the press conference. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News all devoted significant coverage to the group’s May 4 press conference, as MMFA noted.” The TM took their sweet time in actually fact checking what those character assassins said, and by then, it was too late. If the Media were truly biased, would it not have debunked their claims FAR earlier than “it” did? Why wait so long? Why give so much weight and authority to their claims?
“CBS trying to put out forged documents to influence a presidential election alone is sufficient evidence for media bias. However, you don’t want to accept evidence of bias when it has been proven.” One: It was one story, by one producer, aired by one anchor. Even if proof that this producers was liberally biased, that does NOT provide evidence that the entire TM is liberally biased, ESPECIALLY given how hard the other news companies beat up the producer and Rather. If so liberally biased, why not just give Rather a pass? Why not ignore the story? (I’m sure you’ll say, because Fox News wouldn’t let them)
“You assert that when someone disagrees with you, they are so clearly wrong that the media should not show their viewpoint. And any attempts to show views counter to your own would corrupt the media.” Seeing that you posted what I wrote, I’m surprised you didn’t actually READ IT. Do I EVER say that when someone disagrees with ME, they are CLEARLY wrong? Nope. What I do say is exactly what I wrote: “that even when there is a clear answer to a question, they think they must provide some sort of balance.” I didn’t say “that clear answer” was MY Clear Answer, or anything even remotely close. Moreover, how exactly do you think your concern would work out? You think ABC news would call me up one day and ask who to attack next? Cute.
“And most people whom make statements like you did, do not mean it the way you say you did.” That’s a pretty stupid reason to interpret my statement as you did.
As I wrote: “Certainly, you’d be willing to enlist to prove that you support those efforts, right?” Which in simpler terms is If A (you support the war efforts), then B (You be willing to enlist to prove that you support those war efforts). You can’t do a Not B, and therefore Not A. That’s not what I said, and in twisting that way, you read it incorrectly. “I mean common Americans who are so gun-ho about the war and can so easily and consistently say “We should stay in Iraq no matter what. Wars have costs and people die. It’s time we acknowledge that.” It’s easy for someone like you or others to say that when we really haven’t felt the true costs of warfare. ” That’s the interpretation that would have made sense, had you read more carefully. What’ll you find, and I worry about, are people who “Fully support the war” and argue that “war takes costs in both lives and money,” often without having any sense of the true costs of car because it does not effect them.
Comment by Archangel — 2/26/2006 @ 8:16 pm
“How exactly is it different then? Please, do explain? I’d love to hear how you think it is better.”
Before you were arguing that I was arguing the media was liberal because you were liberal.
“If the Media were truly biased, would it not have debunked their claims FAR earlier than “it” did? Why wait so long? Why give so much weight and authority to their claims?”
Many in the media were scared that it could hurt Kerry and therefore tried to bury it as long as they could. They hoped that by not covering it, very few people would pay any attention to it. Their later attempts to debunk it mostly consisted of the events with conflicting eyewitness testimony.
Every officer and most of the enlisted personell in Kerry’s division, even including the ones whom voted for McGovern, said that Kerry should not be the commander in chief. Kerry also stated during the war that EVERY US soldier in Vietnam had not only committed atrocities, but ones beyond previous wars. Kerry furthermore, while still serving in the military, met with the leaders of the forces fighting American soldiers.
“One: It was one story, by one producer, aired by one anchor. Even if proof that this producers was liberally biased, that does NOT provide evidence that the entire TM is liberally biased, ESPECIALLY given how hard the other news companies beat up the producer and Rather.”
Once again, you somehow don’t want any evidence to count once it is shown.
“If so liberally biased, why not just give Rather a pass? Why not ignore the story? (I’m sure you’ll say, because Fox News wouldn’t let them)”
The traditional media could not ignore the use of forged documents to influence a presidential election, since people already knew about it from the blogs. It also gave them an opportunity to belittle a rival.
“I didn’t say “that clear answer” was MY Clear Answer, or anything even remotely close.”
<