Picking up on comments from happyfeet, let’s judge today’s AP’s Iraq reportage by the AP’s stated standards.
Here’s the “roundup” segment of “3 U.S. Airmen Die in Baghdad Car Bombing”:
Among Sunday’s attacks:
– A barrage of mortars killed four civilians and wounded five others in central Baghdad after a roadside bomb missed an Iraqi police patrol and killed two pedestrians, police said.
Here’s part of the AP’s “statement on anonymous sources”:
The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting “a source” is not allowed. We should be as descriptive as possible: “according to top White House aides” or “a senior official in the British Foreign Office.” The description of a source must never be altered without consulting the reporter.
Unless it’s from Iraq, in which case “police said” is sufficient. To be fair, other news organizations use the generic phrase in their police blotters. But I’ll return to that point in a moment.
Back to the AP story:
– Gunmen drove through a marketplace in southwestern Baghdad, spraying bullets into food and clothing stalls and killing three Sunni Muslim shopkeepers, a police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Another drive-by shooting targeted four guards for the Iraqi Finance Ministry, killing one of them.
The AP’s statement:
The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient  when material comes from an authoritative figure whose detail makes it clear and certain that the information is accurate.
Also:
We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information.
And:
Before agreeing to use anonymous source material, the reporter should ask how the source knows the information is accurate, ensuring that the source has direct knowledge.
Unless it’s from Iraq, in which case we don’t look for corroboration or give any indication of the source’s motive—even though it’s largely sectarian violence where almost anyone might have a motive. Nor will we explain why the reader should believe the source has direct knowledge. Indeed, if it’s Capt. Jamil Hussein talking, we’ll demand that the reader take it on faith that he had direct knowledge of incidents in areas of Baghdad where he was never stationed.
To return to the initial “police said,” a different version of this AP report reads as follows:
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Gunmen killed three Sunni Muslim shopkeepers Sunday in a mixed neighborhood of Baghdad, and two pedestrians died in a roadside bomb, police said.
The shopkeepers were killed in Baghdad’s southwestern Baya district. Two cars of gunmen screeched through the neighborhood’s main marketplace, opening fire on wholesalers peddling food, clothing and housewares, a police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. One person was also injured.
So the “police said” locution may include those anonymous police, and may not refer simply to an official police statement. Which is of some note, given that the first version I linked uses the phrase again, after the anonymous unofficial police account:
– In Mahaweel, about 35 miles south of Baghdad, gunmen killed a Shiite cleric and his son as they were heading to a nearby Shiite shrine, police said.
Again, we hope that this was from someone authoritative, or at least corroborrated. But if not, who cares? It’s Iraq. The city is riven with sectarian violence, so if the occasional report is unsubstantiated hearsay, who cares?
State television said eight militants, including five Sudanese fighters, were captured Saturday in the battle near Haifa Street, a Sunni insurgent stronghold on the west bank of the Tigris, where police reported finding the bodies of 27 torture victims dumped earlier in the day.
Al-Suneid, who is also a member of parliament, said the new drive to free Baghdad from the grip of sectarian violence would focus initially on Sunni insurgent strongholds in western Baghdad.
Sunnis were likely to cry foul, given that a large measure of today’s violence in Baghdad is the work of Shiite militias, loyal to al-Maliki’s key political backer, Muqtada al-Sadr.
It’s Iraq, so the AP is allowed to make a political prediction in a straight news story. And if you read the entire roundup, you will find that none of the incidents is expressly attributed Shiite militias that the reporter claims were responsible for a large measure of the attacks that day. But don’t worry about it—the AP has standards, after all. It just chooses not apply the same standard of identifying police spokesmen to its Iraq coverage that it does to a story on the death of University of Southern California kicker Mario Danelo.
Good God, I’m afraid you’re summoning an evil force here.
Drop the live chicken and back away from the volcano.
That wouldn’t have anything to do with a certain AP source of past dubiousness and present incarceration, now would it?
And I feel I must add that it certainly must be handy for some people that the newly-free yet liberty-deprived people of Iraq won’t be misled by anything but officially-sanctioned news.
All of this bandwidth just to rationalize the fact that this guy existed?
Leave Hussein alone and move onto to something else.
No amount of posts claiming your concern is going to sway the folks who diagree with you or the folks who agree with you.
Liberal blogosphere = PW and its followers can’t admit when they wrong
PW = this is about the AP and its standards, whther Hussein exists or not (and no one has convinced he does).
Points taken, move on.
PS I will posit that Karl’s post is more about the difference between “reporting” and “journalism.” Karl’s post cricizes the AP writer for journalism (because this happened, this might happen), when what he wants is reporting (A bomb blew up and some people died). The AP purports to perfrom the former function.
The media can go observe, research and report anything they like, jon. No one is “officially sanctioning” news. Restricting the flow of information from government agencies to those whose job it is to relate such is absolutely nothing new, and the screeching over it from the left is quite silly and yet utterly typical. How many “senior administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity” in our own government do we get our “news” from? Discern the difference between sources and news and you’ll be well on your way to comprehension, jon.
It’s also a far cry from the Iraqi glory days when being found with a satellite dish would get you executed, don’t you think?
Timmyboy, considering the shattered credibility of AP’s sources just how do you know if the AP is reporting that ‘a bomb blew up and some people died’ actually happened?
Is it because the AP said that a unidentified police officer said so or because the leftards told you to bend over in an anal retentive position?
I guess I just wanted to have a better Iraq back when I actually supported this Iraq invasion thingy. Sorry for all the associated disappointment regarding my disappointment.
All the hubbub about the AP standards is just bull. The USC kicker story doesn’t involve the possibility that if someone talks out of turn they might find themselves in the bottom of a cliff (plus we know those people who run press conferences never speak out of turn or in an unofficial capacity.) Iraqi coverage needs to allow for less identifying marks regarding sources, since the climate is a bit less stable than even the most dangerous parts of Southern California.
Protecting sources confidentiality is important if the news is going to get out. Is it abused? Occasionally. But I can live with that. And if some internal AP rulebook turns out to be not exactly the way things get done? I guess that proves the AP is run like Congress, the United States, United Nations, Borders Rewards, my public library, the Department of Corrections, the justice system, and public schools. There’s policy and there’s getting things done. Sometimes the policy gets in the way.
It’s the things getting done that is causing the problem here, not the policy. Though I guess with Jeff’s imminent return, we should demand a little bit of BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!
How do I know anything happened, Synn? EVER?
In the case of Iraq I will take the AP’s word that an explosion happened because it is consistent with other news reporting, consistent with the reports of my government, consistent the video of new reporting I see, and consistent with the eyewitness account of both my brother-in-law and cousin, both of whom have just returned from Iraq.
It could be that there is a vast conspiracy, which produces fake news, invents fake critics of that news, studio produced films of violence, and the kidnapping, brainwashing, and return of my relatives all just to confuse little ol’ me.
Jeez, I guess I’ll go with the first option.
You guys will get over stuff like this quicker is just mutter two things to yourselves as the day goes by:
#1) The AP is a profit driven enterprise. There is no profit in taking sides in America’s domestic war agaisnt itself…
and #2) The medis did not and will not “lose” the war. The war was “lost” in a thousand different ways before the AP used Iraqis to undermine the occupation.
Once you accept those two truths and you stop worrying about Jamil Hussein and start talking about stuff that is actually interesting. We all make mistakes. The AP, Michelle Malkin, Eric Boehlert, Jeff Goldstein, even the President. The key is a) ignore the mistake and move on, or b) explain yourself once and move on.
Continually harping on it using sophomore philosophy class terms isn’t proving anything to the 100% of people whose minds are made up.
jon, is there a point in your comment? If the problem with things getting done is 61 single-sourced, uncorroborated accounts without a human being to attribute them to being transformed into news, shouldn’t there be a policy against that and shouldn’t such a policy have some teeth?
Better than what?
Jon
We are fighting an Information War; propaganda is the weapon. Personally speaking, I need to know if I can trust the source of the information I’m receiving before I accept the truth of their story. I also need some evidence to back up the statements.
From my perspective Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam and America is in a better position to fight radicalized Islamic Jihad.
No it isn’t. AP is a cooperative designed to provide facts from far flung locations for its members, who are profit driven news agencies. AP is supposed to be “just the facts”. Furthermore, this is not an American domestic/civil propaganda war, it’s a worldwide effort.
Right, the Iraqis may lose the war, and the media is exacerbating the problems they’re having, much to the delight of those entities that want Iraq in chaos, namely Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda.
What do you think the purpose is of planting a false story of Shia on Sunni mosque destruction and worshiper immolation? Who do you think the intended audience is for that?
Timmy: Who, exactly, is the intolerant one here?
If I have translated your comment correctly (and, believe me, I expect to be corrected tout suite) in effect you have said, “The war is lost, the entire policy was a disgrace and a failure from the start so why are you bothering with this inconsequential stuff anyway?”
Well…
Here’s a news flash; TimmyB doesn’t get to dictate the paramaters of the argument. If we choose to debate the accuracy of AP’s reporting, we do so (as Karl has so amply demonstrated twice) with presentations of facts as well as analysis of those facts and sources. Your response ramps up the generalizations to include this ridiculuous assertation that this argument equates to “the media lost the war.” Pablo actually makes the more nuanced popint that the media has an effect. By making that assertation you seek to disable all debate as to the veracity and policies of war reporting in Iraq as you would like your own opinion (no doubt supported by the “70% of Americans” poll that you swing like a progressive samurai sword) to be the final word. Heet aids and abets by calling all who will not agree to the truthiness of complete failure and complete catastrophe fucking idiots and loosers. That is so very fascist of you both.
Guess what: we will continue to ask questions and debate issues up to and including the entire justification of the Iraq war and the GWOT. Not everyone here is in lockstep with your pronouncements of “fact” and “Truth” but you don’t possess any more divine insight than anyone else. Karl makes several points about one particular topic. Cynn and jon are at least trying to engage in a debate. You, on the other hand, are trying to get yourself ordained Pontiff of Infallible Truth and, thereby, pronounce the end of this topic as it is uninteresting within the context of your self proclaimed Divine Insight. I’m sure that Huffpo would welcome your coronation.
BTW: Little is more laughable that heet engaging in gutter trash talking and then calling this site one of the most vile language sites on the web. Here’s a challenge for you, tough guy/girl. Make up another handle. Go to either Kos or Huffpo or Firedoglake and attempt to post an opposing view to, well, anything. If they will allow your post to stand (no sure thing) sit back and enjoy the toxic vitriol, then come back here with those utterly unsupported and incorrect allegations.
Having denied the Topic Coronation of Pope Timmah let’s get back to flaggelating AP and the MSM!
Thank you, sir! May I have another?
timmyb
With all due respect to your willingness to believe any story so long as it is consistent with the other stories you believe, there is in fact a vast conspiracy to produce fake news. It’s being done, or attempted at least by the same people who are responsible for the stories of explosions. That kind of stuff is par for the course in war, and I bet you know that.
Actually, BJ, all I was saying is you guys are spending a lot of time attempting to claim anything other than “Hussein existed and we, like a lot of other people, messed up.”
After all, by my count this is the fifth post in the rear guard attempt to hold the bridge that is “we weren’t talking about just that one guy, but a bigger picture of….). Karl will do what he wants, but five posts, parsing AP text, doesn’t make it anymore interesting or make Dan, Jeff, Michelle, et al any more correct on Hussein.
No matter how many over-blown words have been expended on Hussein, he apparently still exists.
PS. I’m still at a loss on to how BJ’s defensiveness is triggered by my suggesting Jamil Hussein is largely played out. But, the suggestion that anyone on PW would ever question the justification for the war in Iraq or “the GWOT” is the single funniest thing I have heard or seen since last evening’s American Dad. one of you guys question the invasion of Iraq. Hah
Sorry for my imposition after almost 5 consecutive 4000+ word posts on the subject. You may now return to parsing the captions of AP photos in the mistaken belief that it makes any difference.
you can start researching with Al-Sahab.
and of course, Mudville Gazette has a nice round up on Al-Queda’s “Working Paper for a Media Invasion of America”
I’ll briefly address some of jon’s and timmyB’s comments.
jon writes:
and:
Taking them in reverse order, jon is arguing for lax standards of reporting events in Iraq. That’s interesting, but it is not the AP’s stated position—which is the main point of the post.
jon does (inadvertently) raise an interesting point about officially-sanctioned news.
I would certainly not take the position that only the “official” news be reported from Iraq.
However, it seems to me that conflating official and unofficial reports is bad practice. Not even the fog of war precludes the AP from clearly labeling an official report as such, by quoting a named spokesman, or by specifically stating that it’s an official police report or police PR statement.
Moreover, when we read an “unofficial” report from a police source, it does tend to raise the question of why it is not an official report.
For example, a policeman reports an apparent crime to an AP reporter. Does the AP check to see whether there is an official police report (if not, why not—esp. in the case of a source requesting anonymity)? Did the source file any paperwork on the incident (if not, why not)? Are the Iraqi police suppressing reports of certain incidents?
That last question, btw, should be of interest to everyone, including jon, timmyB and lefties who seemingly have no interest in the sourcing of the AP’s Iraq reportage. Other questions in this vein would be: Is the AP citing these “unofficial” reports because it suspects that reports of incidents are being suppressed? If so, why is the AP not reporting the evidence supporting such a belief?
Instead of simply assuming that everyone is operating from a purely partisan agenda, folks might want to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The recent Gallup Poll showing that most people do not believe that the media coverage Iraq is accurate contains a decent percentage of people who think things are worse there than reported. Maybe they are, in which case examining the phenomena of the unofficial police report should be of interest to everyone.
timmyB writes:
The shorter version is that timmyB is willing to accept “fake, but accurate” news.
One of my concerns is that placing a stamp of credibility on unsubstantiated rumors of incidents like the Burning Six may help fuel the sectarian conflict and, on the margin, increase the danger to people like his cousin and brother-in-law when they serve in Iraq.
I also wonder whether the MoI’s actions regarding unofficial police spokesmen are an extension of the sectarian conflict, or an attempt to keep the flow of stories that fuel the conflict to those that are properly-documented.
And when I write that last bit, I am not suggesting that I know the answer to that question or even whether there is one answer to that question.
I am suggesting, however, that to assume that everyone questioning the AP’s reportage is simply acting out of a rabid partisan desire to blame the media for the chaos in Iraq, or out of a desire to impute bad motive to the AP in every case (though the fact that the AP refuses to acknowledge that its own re-investigation of the Burning Six story seems to contradict the original account raises that question in that case).
Which is in response to you and others keening your sheer delight at the AP’s proclamation of Jamil’s existance while ignoring the rest of the issues raised. Perhaps you should just ignore us and we’ll go away.
Which, again, is not the whole point. Now that he (supposedly) exists we can reasonably pursue the issues that have been previously raised which, by your measure, are unimportant and uninteresting. Sorry.
It’s not defensiveness so much as resentment of your evangelical fervor to squash this line of discussion in favor of the “All of Iraq Sucks All of the Time.” Pardon us if we refuse to drink the Koolaide.
You need to spend some time re-reading comments. Most people here have support the Iraq strategy as part of the GWOT. The fact that we might constitute a minority of public opinion doesn’t cause any lost sleep. There are those who comment regularly who don’t support Iraq and the level of agreement/assesment varies from person to person. To suggest that this is a lock step site that pivots and salutes at Bush’s beck and call is to paint a sharp group of people with a broad brush worthy of a South African aparteidist. Congratulations for that.
Perhaps we can set up an E-Mail notification when the entire PW community bows to your superior analysis skills and caring heart and salaams our breathless agreement with your absolutist positions. <DING>
They don’t have to be “correct on Hussein”. The AP needs to be “correct on Hussein” since he’s their source, and so far I don’t see any evidence that they are “correct on Hussein” aside from a guy who says “Nope, that’s not me you’re talking about.” which is pretty lousy evidence. But that, and your faith in the AP are all we have to go on.
Do you really think you’re equipped to draw final conclusions from that? Pshaw!
I stand corrected. You guys keep fighting the good fight. You’ll get those bastards someday.
Now, that that’s out of the way, can someone discuss the Kagan plan for troop surge? See, that’s actually important, as it expends blood and treasure. Are real things allowed to be discussed or is it always “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”?
What sort of straw did you stuff that guy with, Timmah? Are you out of arguments, bunky?
Timmmah is awaiting his ordination as Most Important Topic High Priest and Issues Cardinal.
Didn’t you get the memo, Pablo?
must drink koolaide…
Why it’s the straw of Higher Truthiness, grown from the Fake but Accurate Fields war journalism.
Bon Appetit!
And now, I am bored reading how Timmah is bored with this topic…
Pablo, are you just throwing psuedo-intellectual terms around, because there is no straw man argument there. I adminished you, BJ, and Karl to get the bastards. You’re right and I was wrong. I’ve seen you post before, go out discuss “surge”.
Serge? Actually, I prefer corduroy.
and if i shee you kisharounhere agin today i sssssshall have do adminish you a shecontam.
sorry, having annacole flashebacks here.
I don’t know what Jeff’s plans are for his return, but it’s kind of difficult to discuss the rumored surge without any specifics. If and when Bush proposes a surge, and we know the size, duration, mission, tactics, etc., I may well post on it, if Jeff hasn’t evicted the guests by then. But so far, I’ve seen all sorts of people wasting time discussing a rumored plan. I could post on the Kagan-Keane plan, but that would also be a waste of time without knowing if that’s what Bush is going to propose. Once we’ve heard the proposed plan, it can be compared to Kagan-Keane, etc.
So Timmah suggests that we leave a topic that is still unresolved to discuss a topic for which we have no information as of yet.
My head hurts!
I had an odd, surrealistic moment when I heard Speaker Pelosi say that she wants to have the surge “justified” and “reviewed” and I found my self <gulp> agreeing with her. This administration has long used up all of its passes on Iraq policy and, while I support the mission, I sure as shootin’ want to read and understand the concepts, goals, rules of engagements, etc. before applying the BJTEX stamp of approval.
Someday, Tim, you may acheive that lofty reward and angels will sing!
If Kagan-Keane is not Bush’s plan, then BJ will be right about something. Bush takes all his ideas from the AEI and the geniuses like that clown Kagan
Why on Earth did you even bother posting a dollop of twaddle like that, Timmah? And how could you leave out PNAC?
P.S. I sure hope Bush is listening to someone at AEI.
Speaking of
I happened to be reading this and saw that AP has decided to make this their blanket statement all over the world!
Well said, Pablo, the AEI is surely the only place in Washington to have anyone who was born Muslim or knows anything about Islam.
As to your larger point, if I said the President is influenced by his friends and family, would you be offended? It is not conspiracy to note that the AEI and the folks at the NSA and the Pentagon are close. Kagan-Keane calls for more troops (orginally 80,000+, but someone told clownishly evil Freddy K that this wasn’t Salamis and raising 80,000 extra dudes was impossible, so he he changed his “plan” to what was available) and the President is going to call for more troops! Shock
So, where’s your insight, Pablo?
By the way, the Patriots suck
Pablo: Spoken by a guy who lives in Indiana. Obviously this poor Colts fan suffers from Patriots Envy, a common condition of those fans whose team won more meaningless games than any other pro football organization over the last five years. Be nice to him as the accumulated trauma of having the Pats consistantly beat the Horsies like an African Drum has obviously warped his sense of reality in all things.
Ultimately he is to be an object of pity.
Btw: I grew up in SE Mass.
Yet another reasoned, reflective bit of analysis by the perpetually outraged Prog. I can’t wait until the actual report comes out.
Timmah, why would you say something both so absolutist and so facially absurd?
Why would I be? What makes you think I’m offended by your previous statement? I think it’s stupid, that’s all.
Who said anything about a conspiracy? I was referring to your other facially absurd statement: “Bush takes all his ideas from the AEI and the geniuses like that clown Kagan”
If there was a conspiracy to issue a dumb fucking line like that, the conspirators really need to find a hobby because y’all have waaay too much time on your hands.
Unless you’re going to start paying for it, you’ll take it at the rate I decide to give it to you, and you’ll damned well like it.
Um, yeah. The team that has won 3 of the last 5 Super Bowls sucks. Thanks for your input, Timmah. Your football savvy is just as impressive as your geopolitical acumen. But I’ll have you know this is going to be a conflicted weekend for me, owing to my divided loyalties. You see, I’ve also been a Chargers fan since the early 90’s when I first lived in San Diego, back when the Patriots really did suck. I know, I know, it’s an embarrassment of riches.
BJ, Peyton Manning is Dan Marino.
Gaudy stats, all sorts of records, no rings. I’d rather have the hardware.
Pablo: shhhhhhhhhhh
If you keep this up Tim will start blubbering and flinging around the Horsies’ defensive statistics…
Ok, maybe not!
Remember, long term pro sports trauma victims are to be cared for, not abused. We have a frame of reference with the Red Sox. This is why I have a soft place in my heart for Cubs fans.
Horsies? Not so much…
To tell the truth, I’m a baseball fan. I follow the Colts, tis true and to my ultimate sadness (like being a progressive in this backward state). I will offer this bit of trenchant football analysis, if Tomlinson can’t run, there is no way Rivers can figure out a Belicheck defense. That guy’s a prick, but he’s very, very, very good at his job.
You’re right, Pablo, George gets his ideas, not from the AEI, but from his wide readings on defense subject.
AEI presents preliminary paper in December (ont he 14th to be precise) and it advocates “surge.” Shockingly, as the President “listened” to new strategies on Iraq, he came to advocate “surge.” Just a coincidence I suppose.
QED
As for Manning vs Marino. The Colts wish. Marino appeared in a Super Bowl.
But to blame Manning on the lack of success of his team is unfair, I think. He can’t tackle, he doesn’t draft, and he can’t make the defense do its job. He will do his part, until the Raven pass rush gets near him, then he will panic and suck like he always does when rushed.
Nonetheless, under the present regime they will go nowhere unless they get extremely lucky. You can’t win without running the football.
Next week, Patriots fan can prepare for the long and disappointing Red Sox season to come. Could be worse, they could be a Reds fan. At least the Sox try.
BJ, have you ever been to Wrigley? It might be the best place on earth. If you haven’t gone, do so.
Conservative Red Sox fans? First ones I ever met. Good to know you guys are right about one thing in life.
No I haven’t, but do feel blessed to have grown up with ready access to Fenway Park. One of the toughest things about moving to eastern PA was having to see baseball at the old Vet. *ugh*
I was in the center field bleachers for game 6 of the ‘67 World Series, an experience that is imprinted on my memeories. I would, someday, like to take a trip to Wrigley as I have always felt that Cubs fans are the greatest baseball fans on earth (with all due respect to Red Sox and Cardinals fans.)
The Reds? Yeesh!
BTW not everybody who grew up in New England is an insufferable Blue Nosed (or Blood) faux intellectual Liberal.
I sense an overwhelming irony that you would propose to drop the whole AP kerfuffle but would then raise the tattered, tired, schreechy moonbat “Bush is a dumbass!” banner.
Well done!
I’m sure that, being the President of the United States of America, George Bush hears all sorts of ideas from all sorts of people and has access to all sorts of information from all sorts of places. I’m comfortable assuming that he has more input than anyone would know what to do with. If you’d prefer to think that he sits waiting anxiously for the newest pronouncements to emanate from AEI before he figures himself capable of rendering an opinion and that AEI gave him a shiny new Iraq strategy as an early Christianistmas present, well, that would be typical of you. Carry on, bunky.
As for the weekend’s festivities, I don’t think the Pats have enough defense left to stop San Diego’s O, but you can’t ever count that team out. If they play a ball control game and don’t turn it over, they can win it.
As much fun as it would be to go on the road and win an AFC Championship game at Indy, I don’t think Peyton is going to playing in that game. Baltimore will be a much shorter trip for Brady and the boys.
BJ, I was going to say that I can’t imagine ever seeing a game at the Vet, then I remembered how many I saw at Riverfront….oh, the horror.
My memory is a little shoddy of the 1967 series, but Gibson pitched Game 7, so you saw a Sox win in the World Series! That is very awesome.
As for wrigley, it is an experience. One thing I should caution you about (and we go every year)is that it will change your view of Cub fan. My theory is that real Cub fans don’t go to games, because Wrigley is chock full of kids drinking and not caring a whit about the ball game. As long as they are female and wearing tank tops, they can be forgiven. Sadly, most are not.
As for being a Reds fan, it is my great sadness
Pablo and BJ,
I didn’t say Bush was dumb (uncurious is better), what I meant was that there’s not a lot of time as President to become an expert on military history. It’s sort of time consuming job.
As for the AEI and Mr. Bush, everyhting I have read about the President indicates he’s a man who decides based on advice from trusted people and his intuition. Certainly, John Snow, George Tenet, Christie Todd Whitman, DiIulio can all attest to the fact that he has a tight inner circle and he accepts their advice. He is, most assuredly, not a man who listens to wide debate. Please see his appearance at said Pentagon to solicit opinions: “Tell me how we’re going to win; not how we’re going to leave.” you guys can think that’s the right view. As you know, I do not. What ius certainlyl does, however, is demonstrate a narrowed range of options.
My plan of withdrawing the FOB’s and eating Pizza Hut until the factions sort this out themselves misght be considered leaving….
That may or may not be, (and I’d argue his history of rejecting the advice of close advisors) but what you said was:
Those are not the same thing, are they?
Sounds to me like you don’t care about brown people killing each other. How very “Darfur” of you.
But, hey, it’s not “your” war.
In this case I allege it’s the same thing, because the AEI folks have the ear of the Pentagon and the members of the Vice President’s staff which W. listens to.
It really makes not one bit of difference one way or the other.
What do you think of the surge idea?
BJ, of course, I care about all people. i am a humanist, but when the option is Americans get killed and kill lots of brown people while they sort things out; or Americans stand around safe and watch brown people while they sort things out, count me in the former camp. Count me in the camp with the intervention into Bosnia and Kosovo. If the people on the ground have decided they are done killing each other and want peace (Bosnia), then I’m there. If a government is allowing its people to be murdered, raped, and tortured and all we have to do is show with three planes and 1000 guys (Kosovo), then I say hop to it. That would have worked in Rwanda and would still work in Darfur.
I am not the worlds’ policeman. You can be if you want.
When the Sunnis and Shia and Kurds want our help, they’ll know where we are. And, when the AlQueda folks come out of the woodwork, the Iraqis can fix them or our Special Ops can.
My cousin in Haditha described his service there as driving around on patrol or sitting at the dam. When you drive around patrol, people place IED’s and shoot RPG’s at you. When you sit at the dam, everybody is nicely polite and waves as they drive by the checkpoint. Without out guys and gals as targets, we don’t die needlessly.
Meanwhile, I’ll miss you as you jet off to Burma to free that Nobel Peace Prize lady. Get on it, Officer BJ.
That is the same as this?
You be bullshittin’ me, Timmah!
As for the surge, I’ll tell you what I think about it when I see their mission and ROE. As it stands, I’m very skeptical. Victory has never been about our capabilities. We haven’t lacked anything but will.
We have will, Pablo. Sadly, though, it seems to be stronger on Timmah’s side.
I blame Oprah.
JAMIL HUSSEIN IS NOT MY MASTER!