CNN's concerted strategy of hurting our war effort

sure he is at fault, but he cannot be THE only person.

 

Do you remeber the qoute "The Buck Stops Here..." Plain and simple, he is "The Decider" correct? With great power comes even GREATER responsibility. Dont ever forget that. This is America, screw these political parties as they make policy but dont take responsibility. Enough is enough already.

 

but he is THE DECIDER!

...the "commander guy"!

 

they buck may stop there...but it sure does pass through a lot of hands before it gets there.

in this case, cutting off the head of the snake does no good if the snake has 100 heads.

 

I think you are right, and I also think that the the ultimate responsibility does lie with Bush. So in a way both are correct.

Other people make mistakes, give bad suggestions, and recommendations. Other people give faulty and bad information to the President as well.

So certainly he isn't the only one who bears some responsibility. But at some point he does bear the responsibility for those people. Because they are his appointees, or people he chose to listen to, or people that he failed to hold accountable for their mistakes, and in some cases promoted despite their mistakes.

Bush is the one who has the ability to change that, and has created the atmosphere that allowed those folks to flourish, and encouraged others to follow in their footsteps, because that is what gets rewarded in the Bush administration.

 

yeah, Bush couldn't even admit that he had his watch stolen even though it was on video for the world to see. You think he's going to admit that he made a mistake going into Iraq?

 

I'm sorry, but a lot of people were questioning the "evidence" well before the war. Bush could have questioned it. He didn't show a sign.

He has that arrogant egotistical way of saying, it's my way or the highway...and when people oppose him, he just shuts them out.

It's that type of leadership that landed the entire country into a mess. Yes, it's his fault, because it's not the decision he made to go into Iraq only, it's the very nature of how he leads...his narrow focus and inability to consider. It's not only foolish, it's seriously dangerous and irresponsible.

 

If our armed forces are so weak-minded that public opinion will make them quit, we deserve to lose and that's a problem with the military, not the public.

This is a democracy, and if the public calls for withdrawal, then so be it. If the enemy is encouraged by the fact we are sick of war - then so be it. Because we are sick of war. And why shoudl that be hidden?

We were promised a quick war, and that was clearly a lie. People want a different mideast policy - I want a different mideast policy. I'm sick of this arrogant American approach which is only resulting in more trouble.

Helping the enemy? How about CREATING an enemy in the first place? Do you think it's helpful for us to bomb and bomb and bomb one Muslim nation and then the next? Do you think that hurts the terrorists or helps them?

You're a smart guy, you know the forces and causes at work are far more complex then news stories critical of the war. Let go of your partisanship for a moment and see a bigger grander picture.

Iraq wasn't a terrorist haven in 2003. It is now. Since we went in their to fight a war on terror, and now we took a nation that wasn't inflicting terror, and didn't have the weapons to inflict terror, and turned it into a terrorist haven...where terrorists now use Iraq as a training grounds against American forces for future jihad in other places....well....talk abotu helping the enemy!

we lost this war. And we aren't going to ever defeat terrorism with this approach. Installing gov't is a complete failure. Bush's policy is a complete failure.

So blaming the media for F***'s sake. 7 years of B.S. has gotten us in a thicker mess...that's progress. Sure, blame who ever you want, but most of this country blames Bush.

Oh yeah, if the media never reported critical stuff and just made it appear like the war was going well...maybe we'd support the war too. Hey, yeah, let's live and think under a lie. Isn't that what traitor jorge is proposing???

Frankly, it's scary that people would even say that media is helping the enemy when the real truth is:

If we give in and start to move away from a free press, we're more like an Islamic republic and America is dead.

 

i'll buy that...thats all fair

bolded: that certainly isnt limited to this admin.

you are very right. maybe he did though but was convinced otherwise? albeit, being a pushover isnt flattering either.

 

His father was even against going in to Iraq. So was the CIA - everyone told him it would be a civil war. Instead he was persuaded by Cheney. Even Rice wasn't sure it was a great idea.

I think the choice one makes in who to trust is a big part of leadership and responsibility. It's like a kid who breaks a law and says he did it because his friend said it was ok.

It's just sad. It's frustrating. I was appalled at the decision to go to war, and I knew that evidence was a joke, and everyone here thought it was a joke. How can we have saw it so easily and not our leaders? Even the CIA questioned it. And what did they do? They leak the names of those questionning the evidence????!!!

Sounds like to me they had an agenda to go to war...and the evidence was an excuse. That's what I fully believe.

 

I agree there have been several other recent administrations where there was an atmosphere that encouraged skirting the edges of rules, regulations, and legal issues.

Maybe it is my own bias, but I don't recall any that have rewarded people for supporting, presenting and defending faulty intelligence information leading the loss of thousands of lives. It just seems to have been carried to a different level with this administration.

 

maybe not. i dont know. This very well could have been a culmination of an ongoing deficiency in govt, military and intelligence agencies. I think the intelligence agencies deteriorated significantly in the 90s

 

here's another example of CNN "evenhandedness"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010226
--
'The Knife Went In'
Since 1994, "Theodore Dalrymple," a now-retired prison physician whose real name is Anthony Daniels, has been writing a quarterly column for City Journal, the Manhattan Institute's magazine (and our former employer). His first column made an impression on us:

[rquoter]Not long ago, a murderer entered my room in the prison shortly after his arrest to seek a prescription for the methadone to which he was addicted. I told him that I would prescribe a reducing dose, and that within a relatively short time my prescription would cease. I would not prescribe a maintenance dose for a man with a life sentence.

"Yes," he said, "it's just my luck to be here on this charge."

Luck? He had already served a dozen prison sentences, many of them for violence, and on the night in question had carried a knife with him, which he must have known from experience that he was inclined to use. But it was the victim of the stabbing who was the real author of the killer's action: if he hadn't been there, he wouldn't have been stabbed.

My murderer was by no means alone in explaining his deed as due to circumstances beyond his control. As it happens, there are three stabbers (two of them unto death) at present in the prison who used precisely the same expression when describing to me what happened. "The knife went in," they said when pressed to recover their allegedly lost memories of the deed.

The knife went in--unguided by human hand, apparently. That the long-hated victims were sought out, and the knives carried to the scene of the crimes, was as nothing compared with the willpower possessed by the inanimate knives themselves, which determined the unfortunate outcome.[/rquoter]

We were reminded of this by a CNN.com headline: "Rockets Fall on Northern Israel."

http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1371

 

The interesting thing about observing subjects like basso is the subtle shift - before the subject of his assaults on reality was on reality itself.

now that has become overwhelming so that the theme is assaulting the acknowledgement of reality .

Those Republican'ts are very smart!

 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. By quit, I mean withdraw. The way to get the military to withdraw is to make the American people call for it. There is no military path to victory for our enemies. They cannot force the US armed forces out of Iraq.

This is almost exactly what I said.

If there are people who dislike American foreign policy enough to resist it with violence, then so be it. I don't think we should not take an action simply because doing so will inspire someone to violent reaction.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that articles critical of the war do not have an effect on support of the war? Does the media have no effect on public opinion? If that were truly the case, then raising money would not be a factor in political campaigns. Surely you can recognize that to achieve a goal of getting out of Iraq, the media's efforts would best be spent criticizing the war in Iraq.

I would not characterize Saddam's Iraq as a nation that wasn't inflicting terror. From both the governments terrorizing of its own people, as well as their support of suicide bombers in Israel, it is plain that they were in fact inflicting terror. That some of the terrorists are out in the open and attacking soldiers who are better equipped to defend themselves than civilians is a positive effect of the war, IMO.

We are still there, so the war is not over. As such, it has not already been lost. We may lose the war, as popular opinion seems to be behind the surrender option, but that has not happened yet, nor is that a Bush policy.

Bush is primarily responsible for entering the war. He is the public person perhaps least responsible for leaving. I would certainly not blame the media for us remaining in Iraq, as they are adamantly opposed to the idea. I would put some of the blame on the media for the majority's insistence that we surrender and come home.

The media can choose what stories to report and how to report those stories. In doing so, they can help to shape public perception. Reporting a story that says we are killing 50 enemies (or whatever number, I would guess it is high) for every one soldier we lose is going to have a profoundly different effect than reporting a story that says two American soldiers were killed on such and such date. Neither story would be a lie.

I certainly did not suggest that the press be censored, in fact just the opposite. To deny that the media has an influence on policy, or that their influence is helpful to our enemies in this conflict is asinine.

 

True. Also reesponsible the subservient disgraceful mainstream press such as the NYT; No need to comment on the GOP wing called Fox,Limbaugh and his many clones on talk radio; the digraceful politicians including Hilliary, Kerry and virtually 100% of the GOP in Congress.

 

But saying the media is "helping" the enemy is in an indirect way saying - hey, anyone critical of the war is not a patriot and in league with the enemy. That's a dangerous way to start going...and may open dangerous doors.

By the way, there is no evidence that I know of that Iraq supported suicide bombers in Israel. You sure you're not confusing Iraq with Iran? Saddam abhorred terrorism. He hated Al Qaeda. he thought suicide bombers were uncouth and uncivilized. I don't see how anyone can make the connection. He was a secularlist and dispised sectarianism.

Finally - Iraq terrorized it's own people, some may say Israel terrorizes palestians. Does that make Israel a terrorist. Your argument is going to lead you down a path of incriminating us as terrorists. Terrorism is not ruling with an iron fist. It's about using violence against civilians for political gain.

If you think it's ok to create a terrorist haven in Iraq but that it's not ok to criticize creating a terrorist haven in Iraq, I mean, what can anyone say. It just basically means you defend the war, attack their critics, and will just say whatever to enforce that perception.

I mean....what has going into Iraq accomplished? What exactly have we succeeded in doing? And don't tell me we liberated the Iraqi people - because they sure as hell don't act like a liberated people. And we didn't go in their for their people, as that action has resulted in thousands upon thousands upon thousans of civilian lives lost.

 

You make a very good point, I just hope people understand Bush had separate legitimate information at the time...But I agree, a stronger leader would have looked at all the information better.

 

Another good point to which I largely agree... I personally feel one of Bush's biggest failings (that isn't often brought up) is his weak appointees. I don't have all the names of appointees, but just look at Katrina with the wrong person to head FEMA...He could have had better people from the start and it would have made his job easier and better...

 

yeah. at first, i thought he had a great cast around him but that house of cards fell quickly. Katrina was an obvious mess but i would equally put blame on the state itself and their incompetent leadership (past and present)