In “The Big Picture(s),†I noted the issues raised by establishment media’s “hotel journalism,” as well as the media’s less-than-subtle hostility to Pres. Bush’s decision to “surge†US troops in hopes of bringing down escalating sectarian violence in Iraq. Yesterday, I posted an update on the latter topic, based on the latest study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
In the update, I raised an eyebrow over the fact that “(n)ow there is more good news… and even less coverage.”
Coincidentally, the same phenomenon was noted in a question from an anti-war angle put to Washington Post associate editor Karen DeYoung in a chat with readers about the Iraq policy debate:
Fairfax, Va.: The reason previously given for little on-the-ground Iraq war coverage by our media was understandably that it was too dangerous to cover the situation. But now that we are “winning” according to the president and the choir at Fox News, why isn’t media coverage increasing rather than almost disappearing, as is happening now? Is it because Bush’s strategy is to claim that, because the surge “succeeded,” nothing else is happening in Iraq and we should just “move along” to something else? The MSM seems only too happy to concur, but is it true little is happening other than our troops continue to die and suffer horrific wounds? What is happening there, and have we become so desensitized we don’t care? If so, Bush has succeeded in putting the national consciousness to sleep, hasn’t he?
Karen DeYoung: I disagree that we haven’t been increasingly out and about. The Washington Post in recent weeks has reported from Basra, Najaf and a lot of Baghdad neighborhoods. Others have done the same.
Contrast Ms. DeYoung’s answer with the results of the PEJ survey:
One of the clearest findings in our survey of journalists covering the war in Iraq is that the ability of reporters to move around the country freely to get a larger sense of the state of the country is severely limited.
It would appear that the establishment media is not getting out and about as much as she thinks.
Perhaps more telling is this observation from the PEJ survey:
Not only are journalists necessarily limited by where they can go and what they can seeâ€â€what soldiers have often called the fog of war effectâ€â€but where matters may be headed, or how to contextualize them, may be even more challenging. If the surge is working, for instance, will that serve the goal of stabilizing the Iraqi government? Or will it have some other effect? For journalists in any setting, elevating daily coverage of rapidly unfolding events into contemporary history, or even solid trends, can prove elusive.
This certainly explains why only 3.8% of the stories studied by PEJ were coded as “straight facts.” It does not explain why journalists huddled in their hotels should assume the function of making delphic predictions about the future.
P.J. O’Rourke called it covering the story from mahoganey ridge (the hotel bar).
I noticed that when I linked to those stats teh other day from the Committee for the Protection of the Journalists or whatever that they hadn’t broken out the number of embedded reporters that had been killed. I can only think of that nice columnist guy from the Washington Post, way early on. I really liked that guy but I can’t think of his name right now. That’s kind of sad. He was trenchant and wise.
Karl =
Bingo!
They are not interested in leaving the bar, because they already know what they think. And woe! to those who would look at positive developments as – well – positive.
Just keep your f’ing mouth shut if you see anything positive happening. After all, total silence is not really lying…
Why does the questioner bring up Fox news? I am sorry but I do not see the relevance. Can anyone help me out? My guess is he is just a brain washed leftist spouting talking points such as;
to die and suffer horrific wounds, putting the word “winning” in quotation marks as if to denigrate the word or question its meaning, and then blame the evil “Bush” for putting Americans to sleep and somehow influencing news coverage so they do not cover the war anymore.
I could be wrong though I am not a good mind reader.
happyfeet,
I think you’re thinking of Michael Kelly.
I fervently hope Bush has recognized that the MSM is now adversarial even in war, and is freezing them out as much as possible to give strategic planning a descent shot at success.
Unfortunately, it’s more likely the media is the one being pro-active, sowing conspiracy and projecting expectations.
Yes. Michael Kelly. That was a genuine loss, that one.
Michael Kelly wrote a good book about his experiences in the first Gulf war: Martyr’s Day.
Remember that reporterette from a few years ago, who was recalled from Baghdad for safety’s sake? “I do my job”, she protested. “I never leave the hotel.”
So, what’s your point? Is it safe or not? Are you saying that reporters could in fact venture out and report the reality but are too invested in some crazy drumbeat they bought into? Then I call bullshit.
No need to call bullshit, cynn. They may dance to the drumbeat, maybe not. I’d reckon they’re just lazy. Seems the most likely explanation.
cynn,
My point is that Ms. DeYoung’s perception does not seem to match that of the journalists in Iraq — which should raise the question you’re asking, but won’t because Ms. DeYoung isn’t aware of the disconnect.
My other point is that is establishment media reporters — regardless of whether they are still spending most of their time at their hotels, really, but especially then — might want to spend more time reporting and less time opining on policy or predicting what they think will happen in the future. In my original piece, I pointed out numerous times that news reports of some terror attack in Iraq would “cast doubt†on the surge, or “was a blow struck against the US plan.†If nothing else, my suggested approach would have kept them from looking stupid as conditions continued to improve.
Beyond that, if you ask me to speculate, I would hypothesize that: (1) Iraq is safer than it was; (2) it’s still safer for Iraqis than for Americans; (3) western reporters are getting out of the hotels a little more often, but perhaps not significantly so; (4) they could get out more, as bloggers like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Bill Ardolino, Michael J. Totten and others do; (5) one reason they do not is likely that the corporations employing them require higher levels of security for insurance purposes, etc.; (6) another reason they do not (I suspect) is that establishment media reporters don’t think they get “the real story” when they embed with the US military, though I could find posts from Totten and others addressing and refuting that notion; and (7) as posited in my original piece, a group of ideologically sympatico reporters holed up in a hotel risks lapsing into groupthink. That does not mean that they get the overall story completely wrong — it means that when they make mistakes (as humans do), those mistakes will tend to skew in a particular direction. It also means they miss some large and important stories — like the Anbar Awakening — as detailed in my original piece.
Cynn,
There was a time when reporters went where the stories were, whether it was dangerous or not. Some few still do, but they are by far the exceptions.
So what’s bullshit? That a reporter like Michael Yon gets ignored and dismissed though he dons body armor and travels the streets, or that one like Ms. DeYoung stays in the hotel, files from teh lobby and relys on the second hand information from stringers who may or may not be affiliated with one faction or another, if not al-Qaeda? If the latter, than we agree, but I’m betting it’s not and we don’t.
I, an average consumer of news, have heard of this Anbar Awakening — to my mind, an investment in future insurgency. Leave that aside. I’m not insulated; I read Totten and whatnot. What I see is orchestrated. What I’d like to see is a clandestine report; I’d like to see a reporter gather the stones to do it.
Karl, this is quasi on topic, any thoughts on the potential of “journalistic malpractice” suits?…Other than a future for John Edwards…
“What I’d like to see is a clandestine report; I’d like to see a reporter gather the stones to do it.”
You want a reporter to go undercover? To be a spy?
BMoe – The AP is already doing that.
Except they do not call them spies, but photographers.
It’s about to head into the sixth year and you blame that on bad press?
Please show a direct connection, if you please, between Iraq spiraling out of control in April of 2003 and poor press coverage. Perhaps that loss of civic cohesion had more to do with the Secy. of Def. crying “Henny Penny” than with looters reading the daily edition of the NYT.
huh?
Yes, phoebe. Their role is front and center.
We are entering the 6th year in Iraq? Really?
Hopefully, you will acquit yourself better this time around. However, you are off to an inauspiscious start.
When did Iraq spiral out of control? You and your ilk were talking about kKkwagmire’s in the first week, due to a sandstorm. We must have done one hell of a job to stop it from spirally completely out of control, huh? Unless your definition of sprialling out of control is being in a war zone.
JD, You can count?
2003, 04, 05, 06, 07 makes 08 the sixth year.
i can’t breathe cause teh stupid knocked the wind out of me so hard
oooooh, that’s what that loud wooshing sound was, happyfeet?
you can’t make this stuff up, maggie
I dunno happy, gimme a couple more hours and some beer….
maggie katzen’s response to phoebe:
It’s a canned “we’re doooomed” screed.
phoebe: No, the sixth year won’t be completed until 2009. See, most people count by time periods completed, not started.
Oh, did you think you were being clever with your histrionics?
Isn’t the term “contemporary history” oxymoronic? The author of the term is lacking a functioning sense of temporal reality.
Last I checked, “history” is history, and contemporary trends are just “fads.”
Phew. I smell another PoMo fudge-cicle melting in the corner.
phoebe: No, the sixth year won’t be completed until 2009. See, most people count by time periods completed, not started.
Please read what I posted at #18… “It’s about to head into the sixth year…”
I did not use the word completed.
In feeble’s defense, she did say “about to head into” that ominous sixth year. However, that wouldn’t actually happen until the fifth anniversary of the actual invasion, which is still some months away.
For all any of us knows, by then Her Inevitableness will have begun winning so convincingly in the contest for the presidency that they’ll call off all the remaining elections and just proclaim her president.
And then the evil warmongers will all be so sorry.
oh gee, if the sixth year is ominous what about the ninth? though RTO would argue it’s more like 15 plus what with the Yugoslovian/Serbian thing being related. just wondering how length of time even came up as important.
Good heavens, there was a fistfight in Gorazdevac. Let’s blame it on the American press for not reporting enough good news from Kosovo.
McGhee:
…and she sounds like some youngster trying to get into a bar by saying she’s entering her 21st year.
Because she’s so clever, after all.
Just so I got this right, phebes. Iraq is such an unholy mess that al queda has masterminded the surge to lul us all in a state of false security, then when the US numbers begin to diminish-BAM!!-al queda gives the Irqis the one-two punch of insurection and the terrorist takeover of Iraq is complete. Rove is a fuckin’ genius!!
Rusty,
How about the following scenario instead?
After a protracted occupation Iraq is deemed stable enough to self-govern, and most all foreign troops return home. Civil strife, though, breaks out in short order, and a power struggle begins between rival militias. The situation deteriorates to the point where foreign troops re-invade and occupy the country once again. Iraq then goes through a decades long struggle, careening from one military coup to the next, before finally gaining stability at the hands of a strongman who develops into a ruthless dictator.
Does this seem far-fetched to you? It describes, in essence, the history of Iraq from 1914 to 1968. I’d like to have your opinion as to why an American occupation and withdrawal from Iraq will achieve a significantly different result than the British occupation.
Because nothing has changed since 1968. Google it.
Let’s go out on a limb and guess that one small change between 1968 and today was the snapping of B Moes’ mind.
ATTICA! ATTICA! WE DON’T NEED NO WATER LET THE MOTHERFUCKER BURN!
Seriously, though, I think we should make them all stay indoors more, if they were less brown they would probably be much easier to civilize, you know? I am going to start a drive to send some boxes of mayonaise, white bread and Kraft singles over there first thing after the holidays.
And shopping malls. We should be building them shopping malls.
well, they do have a bowling alley B Moe.
Phoebe @ 35 – That must be an interesting history of Iraq you read. Did you ever read about the “golden age” in the 1950s, after the Iraqis got oil revenues back from the British and the Sunnis were putting the boot to the Shia. They had all sorts of grand five year Soviet five year national improvement plans. Heck, they even commissioned Frank Lloyd Wright to design a bunch of buildings for the international metroplois of Baghdad.
What’s your history source?
That glorious golden age of the 1950’s included a military coup in 1958.
So, my question at the end of #35 stands. What factors suggest reconciliation among Iraqis will be any more successful now than it was after the British occupation from 1914-1932? We have committed 150,000 soldiers to the notion of a stable democracy in Iraq. It is not impertinent to ask what we should expect in return for their sacrifice.
If at first you don’t succeed, fuck ’em all and go shopping.
What factors suggest reconciliation among Iraqis will be any more successful now than it was after the British occupation from 1914-1932?
Judge Judy. They get that show on cable and I hear they love it. She’s urging reconciliation. She’s old, but I don’t think she was around in 1932. Someone can check me on that.
Phoebe,
The Iraqis between 1920 and 1932, saw the Mandate as a veil for colonialism. The fact that the British held other colonies and such bad faith arrangements as the Sykes-Picot and Long-Berenger agreements, lent much credibility to the fears of the Arab nationalists. From this several anti-colonial movements arose.
There were other exacerbating factors, an inward refugee flow of minorities feeling Turkish repression, for example.
The British did try to establish Iraqi government. Because these political institutions were the creation of a foreign power, however, the politicians in Baghdad lacked legitimacy and never developed deeply rooted constituencies.
There were early fears, based on long cultural experience, of colonialism this time around. But those fears are laregly quelled, except among our own home-grown radicals. A somewhat related fear, aslo was that the US would pack up an dleave at a momnet when we’d done the most to stir the Iraqis to action, just as we did in 1991.
The Mandate was probably doomed to fail on colonial appearances alone. However, the 12 years do teh Mandate were not enough to have accomplished the goals of a League of Nations Mandate:
Article 22 of the League of Nations Charter: To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
Any effort to secure this purpose is, by it’s nature, generational. It simply cannot be done, and in fact has ever been done where it has succeeded, autonomously or assisted, in less than 20 years. Rather it cannot be done by means which are acceptable–Ancient peoples were adept at this; killing everyone above the age of 12, populating the land with your own people and raising the children as their own or as slaves.
So are you sufficiently able to see what the differences between then and now might be? There is far more to historical analysis and guidance than broad strokes.
RTO,
You misunderstood the question, which did not ask why Iraqis rebelled against colonialism. The question aims at post-1932 independence as the reference point, and asks why we should expect a reconciliation now, when history shows a clearly opposite pattern. What is different today that would compel such a reconciliation? A bowling alley, a shopping mall and the endorsement of Judge Judy… you can buy a lot of sarcasm with 500 billion dollars.
No, Phoebe, you willfully reject the argument by pretending that RTO misunderstood your question. The very response to colonialism and the wording of the mandate create a very different set of circumstaces compared to present day. The fact that the vast majority of the country suffered terriblt under a brutal and secular regime also creates another difference. You are free to make the argument that the circumstances are not different or to argue other factors but not free to call RTO unresponsive or clueless as he seems to have a much better grasp of the historical details than you.
Reading is fundamental.
phoebe – Don’t forget the amusement parks and kites.
BJ,
You don’t understand the question, either.
The very response to colonialism and the wording of the mandate create a very different set of circumstaces compared to present day. The fact that the vast majority of the country suffered terriblt under a brutal and secular regime also creates another difference.
The question does not ask merely for a recitation of differences. It asks WHY we should expect any different result. There was no impetus for reconciliation after the mandate, so what factors indicate there will be a drive for reconciliation after a brutal dictatorship?
Self rule, phoebe. In every example you give either a foreign government or a dictator is forcing their will on the public, their was no opportunity for a coalition to develop. This is the first time that not only is the opportunity there, it is being encouraged.
*sigh* Ok, Phoebe, I’ll say this slowly: What BMoe said plus the lack of the colonialist element and the psychotic dictator create a better set of circumstances today than it did in 1930. There are still significant hurtles but thowing around 1930 when the circumstances are different is wantomly ignorant. That was RTO’s point and several of us got it.
You? Not so much…
Oh and the fact that the centerpiece of the government is revenue sharing, albiet not completely in place. People tend to have more faith in their leaders when they are not sucking the country dry to build palaces and pay off the families of suicide bombers.
You are free to go on asking questions, getting answers and then complaining that no one got the questions.
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!”
Iraq and the entire Middle East is a better place cause of George Bush and a lot of other people. They’re future is far far brighter than it has been in a long long time, and our interests there are vastly better protected. I’m very proud of George Bush for that. He’s a truly great man.
ack. When Nyquil meets grammar.
Well, that is astonishing.
It takes a mighty short attention span and/or memory to declare that Iraq finds itself on the cusp of a representative democracy as a result of its’ own free will. There are scattered accounts of an invasion taking place in the year 2003. Aside from that, it remains that the purple fingered voters in Iraq decided to cast their ballots overwhelmingly along religious and tribal lines. This does not portend well for the prospect of coalition. It is a signal of continued sectarian strife.
God, phoebster – you have such an anemic view of humanity it’s sad. The idea that vast numbers of a society wants to wake up tomorrow morning and be all like “hey what I want to do today is perpetuate sectarian strife and then maybe you want to get together after and have a latte?” No. But this is an idea that resonates a lot with Democrats cause it’s so much who they are.
One wonders, phoebes, how much of your pessimism is reason and how much of it is fervent hope.
Perhaps that is a question you should ponder.
Well put, BJ.
Well, feets (and welcome back BTW) it is one of those important questions that never seems to get asked or contemplated.
For many it’s tied with high tenile cables to that whole argument of “We were right!” about [insert rightness here.] The argument shifts when they can’t force Bushitler to abandon the Iraqi people to “It’s too hard!” which is immediately followed by cries to disengage. Phoebe is more nuanced than surrender Harry, who tosses around “failure” and “lost” like coins into the fountain of wishes, eyes firmly fixed on congressional superiority and “her warmness” firmly imbedded in the White house.
For Harry, it’s purely political but there are others hiding their narcissistic yearnings for vindication and an opportinity to crow in their “rightness.”
One simply wonders where phoebes falls in this daisy chain.
thanks BJ
For Harry, it’s purely political
There’s really an overwhelming mass of contradictions there, but overall you can’t help but wonder if the SCHIP expansion was never intended for anything but to afford the basis for the first Reid quote there. That little man has no shame at all.
Phoebe is a realist in the daisy chain. 150,000 American troops stand as a stopgap measure preventing Iraqis from tearing at each others’ throats. I admire your optimism, but it does resemble the rosy scenario of elections in Gaza, when realism wound up hitting President Bush in the face. Prudence was a hallmark of Bush1. The son must have missed that life lesson.
Democrats are now on record thinking that genocide is prudent, phoebster. I wouldn’t go overboard extolling that virtue.
In others words, those stupid brown people are fucking hopeless.
Thanks, Feebs.
happyfeet,
Was it virtuous when the State Dept. under President Reagan removed Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terror? And then backed Iraq during its’ war with Iran? Or was that a sign of pragmatic, realistic policy?
Whose rosy scenario was that? Elections in a culture steeped in hate and bent on genocide are entirely predictable. Were you surprised at the result? I wasn’t.
Pablo, it was President Bush who pushed for elections in Gaza.
I don’t care. But also I think this happened before September 11 and all that stuff with the airplanes crashing smack into buildings and stuff. I remember when that happened and a LOT of people fundamentally reassessed their views of the Middle East. It was on the news. It’s one of those before and after things.
…but it does resemble the rosy scenario of elections in Gaza…
Well, except for the 150,00 American troops and all that. You are either really ignorant or really evil phoebe, and while you were fun for awhile I am done.
Pablo, here is what President Bush had to say about “elections in a culture steeped in hate and bent on genocide…”
Put your arms around the world at Christmastime…
President Bush:
“These efforts — including today’s presidential elections and the parliamentary elections that will follow in several months — are essential for the establishment of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic, and peaceful Palestinian state that can live alongside a safe and secure Israel.”
The parliamentary elections brought victory to Hamas. And Pablo asks: “Whose rosy scenario was that? Elections in a culture steeped in hate and bent on genocide are entirely predictable. Were you surprised at the result? I wasn’t.”
First, it wasn’t just Gaza, it was all Palestinians. Second, what would you expect him to say?
Are you trying to say that the Palestinian situation is the same as Iraq?
Palestinians have something of a history also. It was on the NewsHour on PBS. But that’s no reason why they can’t turn things around in 2008. I’m pulling for them.
You realize that Iraqis don’t have any particular bloodlust for their neighbors, don’t you? You can tell by the way they’re not randomly rocketing them.
And also it would be hard to argue that anyone is really the worse off for the Palestinians having had elections. It was kind of a psychotic shithole before already. But I’m thinking next time they’ll think twice before pulling that Hamas lever. I know I sure would.
How does Pablo live with such cognitive dissonance?
“Elections in a culture steeped in hate and bent on genocide are entirely predictable. Were you surprised at the result? I wasn’t.â€Â
followed by:
“Which doesn’t say that they’ll result in such, only that they are a necessary step if that result is to occur.”
You’re conflating what Bush said with what I said, Feebs. Personally, I think his Israel/Palestine policy sucks.
But that’s entirely beside the point, which is why you brought Palestinian elections into the conversation. Do you think the two situations are comparable or not? Please answer the question this time, and feel free to explain yourself.
Or they’ll pay the price. More. Again. it was often said, and Abba Eban said it first, that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But Iraqis they’re not.
That withdrawal from Gaza sure worked out well, didn’t it?
Of course they are comparable. In each case Bush believes that the magic of elections in a brutalized society will flower into representative democracy, even though each of these societies has never known representative democracy.
How so? And “Bush thinks X about them” is not an answer.
I think the Palestinians that voted for Hamas were a little disappointed in the outcome as well, phoebes. Sometimes the only way out is through when it comes to resolving cognitive dissonance.
Chuck Hagel on the surge…
I bet he feels kinda dizzy.
Very well said, though I’d add delusion, particularly of grandeur.
That withdrawal from Gaza sure worked out well, didn’t it?
Strategy wise, it did work out well. Israel no longer has to worry about defending a few thousand settlers among a million Arabs. It was a pragmatic move, very painful, but wise.
When in doubt, retreat is always the best move, phoebes. That’s why the Democrats can count on my vote.
Phoebe, do you intend to answer my #81?
How so? And “Bush thinks X about them†is not an answer.
Okay. Substitute “The current foreign policy of the United States” for “Bush”.
Oh look. Looks like Charlie Wilson’s War isn’t destined to be a holiday favorite after all. Anyone else smell zeitgeist?
Yeah, now they just have to worry about Israel proper being rocketed daily from there.
happyfeet,
Ariel Sharon is your idea of defeatist?
I think it scrubbed the link…
http://www.boxofficereport*.com/wbon/daily.shtml
Ariel Sharon is my idea of dead, phoebes. He’s like Lucille Ball and Kurt Cobain and Lady Bird Johnson.
Still not an answer. Is your version of reality based on what Bush thinks or the current policy of the United States? How are the two situations comparable?
Answer the question or say “Goodnight, Pablo. I’m not going to waste any more of your time.”
“Of course they are comparable.”
Because why? Other than Bush sounding similar in his sound bites regarding their election, and them being godless arab savages, what do they have in common?
Oh and also that guy that played the kid on seaQuest DSV.
B Moe, apparently, while disagreeing with Bush’s policy, Pheobe believes that they are precisely the same because she thinks Bush told her so.
What was that you were saying about cognitive dissonance, Feebs?
What they have in common is the forceful foreign policy of the United States pressing on them. The U.S. pressed for elections in Gaza, and when the result was disappointing, withheld commitments in aid. Force is the common factor. 150,000 troops in Iraq represents force. Withholding promised aid to Gaza represents force. Force is the comparable factor. Do you see U.S. foreign policy as benign?
Hey! Are you that girl from Friends?
“Do you see U.S. foreign policy as benign?”
Yes. Do you see us as evil?
As does, let’s say…Mexico. So is that just the same too? Or do you have a fucking point in making the comparison?
How are the two societies comparable? How are the situations the same? Does everything on the planet bend to US policy in your mind?
How are the two societies comparable? Gazans elected Hamas. Iraqis elected a majority party named “The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution”. That’s comparable enough for me.
Ah, then you’re an idiot.
Does the SCIRI have a platform of eliminating their neighbors? And are they in complete control of Iraq? No and no.
“That’s comparable enough for me.”
You are a vapid, self-loathing idiot, phoebe. Go away, you have nothing to offer in an intelligent discussion.
Right again, phoebes! It’s like how Big Trouble In Little China and Big Trouble In Little Vagina are like almost the same movie.
I see. So, you think that when Saddam sent support to the families of suicide bombers that killed Israelis he was acting against the popular will of Iraqis?
It’s like you’re always stuck in second gear…
Tell me, why would Saddam do that other than to ingratiate himself among his people?
Is Israel a key issue in Iraqi domestic politics? Is it an issue at all? Please give us a cite or two that shows that Iraq’s future is entwined with Israel.
Why would Democrats decry waterboarding?
Loyal Bushie Nation Builders.
I love George Bush.
Arab nationalism. He wanted to be the new Saladin/Nebuchadnezzar. And Iraq under Saddam was all about the greatness of Saddam.
Most people know that.
“Tell me, why would Saddam do that other than to ingratiate himself among his people?”
Tell me, why would he need to ingratiate himself amongst his people? Do you think he was worried about winning the next election? Even asking that question should just embarass the hell out of you.
Please give us a cite or two that shows that Iraq’s future is entwined with Israel.
President Bush, 2004:
“A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that’s essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country.”
From Pablo’s link…
Gosh, phoebes. It hasn’t been your day, your week, your month, or even your year.
and with those words of immortal wisdom from president bush ringing in our ears, i bid you goodnight…
G’night, phoebes. Hey! Are you Holden’s little sister?
I think that’s you, Feebs, since you seem to decide the truth based on what George Bush says.
NEOCON!!!
“and with those words of immortal wisdom from president bush ringing in our ears, i bid you goodnight…”
Goodnight, and don’t let the sand-niggers bite.
apparently he loves us too. Got a picture of him in the mail today, “To ‘RTO’ with respect and appreciation” and some illegible signature. and card, “with the compliments of the President” It’s of GWB and some Vets for Freedom and Families United people.
Phoebe,
Maybe you’ll find it easier if I use fewer words:
The occupation today bears no resemblance to the occupation that ended in 1932. When you ask what’s different, the short answer is “everything.”
But you get confused when I explain how it’s different, which was the bulk of my earlier answer.
Now do you get it?
The Palestinians learned the Great Truth of democratic function–you get what you vote for.
As was stated earlier, they’ll think twice before pulling that same lever a second time.
But this doesn’t mean that elections should be disposed of. Indeed they must be insisted upon, even when it’s almost a dead certaintly that the electorate will vote to cut it’s own throat.
Because the example must be set. A new generation of Iraqis, and Palestinians must grow up seeing this example, learing the lessons of their forebears’ mistakes and NOT thinking that shooting at the neighbors or bing shot at by them is normal. That’s the reason that revolutions take 20 years or more–they are always generational.
So not giving a group foreign aid is the application of force, as opposed to a lesson that democracy has consequences.
Anyone believe that phoebe thinks that other countries should treat the US in exactly the same way, regardless of who we elect?
Anyone believe that phoebe would admit by her logic that her fellow travelers advocate all-out war on Israel, even though they claim they just disagree with some of Israel’s policies?
Based upon phoebe’s ducking and weaving does anybody have any doubts as to what her answer will be to that question?
Stupid and historically ignorant is no way to go through life, girl.
[…] and missing many of the turning points along the way to the current state of progress. Even at the end of 2007, there was still a disturbing level of “hotel” journalism, so it is not much of a […]