I’m a few days late to this, I realize, but Hudson Institute Visiting scholar Nibras Kazimi, who last week wrote the widely linked and debated New York Sun piece, “Turnaround in Baghdad” (about which I posted here and here), asks just how CBS came to “obtain” Al Qaeda video of dead Iraqi soldiers:
Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq released 8 minutes of cell phone footage through its media arm, the Al-Furqan Institute for Media Productions, under the title ‘Some of the Casualties of the Heretics in Haifa Street After Sunday’s Fighting, January 7, 2007, in Baghdad.’ The grainy images were of six or seven bodies wearing Iraqi military fatigues with ‘carry-out’ lunch boxes strewn about them. The images were probably taken by a cell phone, judging by quality. In one scene, a close up is shown of a soldier shot through the head, probably executed.
At the time, the Iraqi military claimed that some of its soldiers were cornered on Haifa Street and killed after running out of ammunition. This incident set off the subsequent battles there. Al-Qaeda also released written statements at the time taking credit for the initial phase of fighting.
The video released by Al-Qaeda two weeks ago moves on from the bodies (referred to in the caption as the ‘rotten carcasses of the Pagan Guard’) to show burnt out cars on Haifa Street, and the following caption reads that these vehicles belonged to ‘plain-clothed’ Mahdi Army militiamen who had arrived to relieve the Iraqi soldiers. Bloodied walls were also shown, seemingly to indicate that the militia members were shot.
These may have been the executions of civilians that Dr. Kassir, who is quoted in the [televised] CBS story [about which more is available on the anti-Bush site, Iraqslogger] was referring to.
The footage “obtained by CBS†is identical to that put out by Al-Qaeda. But [CBS’s Lara] Logan makes no mention of Al-Qaeda’s video and does not address the implication that the footage she used was off an Al-Qaeda video. And if it’s not off the Al-Qaeda video, then how did she get footage identical to the one used by Al-Qaeda? This needs to be explained.
As alphabet city’s Robert Stevens notes in a pair of comments on Kazimi’s site:
Either [Logan] lifted it from the ISI vid, as you suggested, or, CBS did it without her knowledge, or (shudder) it was provided to her by ISI.
[…]
[…] it is possible that whoever supplied the video to Al-Furqan also supplied it to CBS. Or, more likely, the video was passed around among the Sunnis and someone decided to make a buck by supplying it to CBS.
Do you know if Logan, like CNN’s Arwa Damon, is fluent in Arabic? If not, then it would be easy for an Iraqi stringer to have obtained the video and without telling Logan that it was, at the time she filed her story, official Islamic State of Iraq, and therefore Al-Qaeda, video.
Even so, Logan is a seasoned war correspondent and I’m surprised that this got past her. CBS is another story.
Stevens has pursued the story, first reported by Kazimi on Friday, and has both the CBS report and the original video available on his site. For his part, another commenter on Kazimi’s site, having first correctly gauged the attentive public’s growing distrust with mainstream media reports—and without suggesting any intentional bias on their part—throws into sharp relief the concerns many of us have as citizens forced to rely for our news on sources that can be easily manipulated:
It’s looking more and more to me like a lot of what we’ve seen as “news” from Iraq has been supplied to our media by propagandists of the parties most responsible for the continued slaughter of civilians in Iraq. That would mainly be Al Queda and other radical Islamist groups.
If you think coalition forces have trouble telling insurgents from civilians—can you imagine how much gullible journalists, hungry for a story but not eager to go out and get footage and first-hand reports—are willing to take an apparent Iraqi at his word?
Can you imagine how convenient this is to the parties who know that their only chance of winning is to get U.S. public opinion to force an early withdrawal from Iraq?
Can you see that this has been the Al Queda plan all along?
The Western Public is the puppet. Our media is the strings. Kinda gives a new slant on the meaning of the word “stringer”, doesn’t it?
Of course, this being CBS, I’m not quite so willing to rule out knowing malfeasance on the part of their production and editorial staffs, however slyly they may have distanced themselves from potential repercussions by relegating the report to their website. After all, the mainstream press in this country has clearly chosen sides in the prosecution of this war, which makes much of what they do, even when their mistakes are inadvertant and the result of confirmation bias and/or reportorial laziness, rightly suspect, especially given that they now have a clearly-drawn metanarrative of the Iraq war both to (re)inscribe and protect.
And this is CBS, the network that practically canonized the “fake but accurate” maneuver—a trope I once thought would redound to their shame, but one that in the years since Rather’s humiliation seems to morphed into an acceptable weapon in the arsenal of journalists who have come to think of themselves as teaching the lessons of news rather than simply reporting on it. The Doctrine of Truthiness, if you will.
CBS didn’t run the report on its evening newscast, claiming it was “too graphic for an evening news audience” (Logan pleaded for them to do so); they did however, as I noted earlier, place it on their website. So the question becomes, is it possible that CBS—perhaps sensing something was amiss (or perhaps completely aware that something was amiss)—placed the report on their website hoping to allow the video to circulate without having to do any of the hard work of pinpointing its origins or adding context? Did they provide themselves with plausible deniability?
Anyway, for an opposing view of the propaganda charge (which contains every bit of defensiveness and the tu quoque counters about Bush administration lies you’ve come to expect from anti-war shills), see this comment from Annie in that same Kazimi thread.
****
(h/t CJ Burch. More from Malkin, who has asked CBS News’s Public Eye for comment; see also, Blackfive and Confederate Yankee, Jawa Report, and Newsbusters)
****
update: In the comments, serial anklebiter “alphie” writes:
CBS Evening News gets about 6 million viewers each night.
How many people go to their website?
I smell another “Jamail Hussein†style backfire here for the MSM haters.
CBS not airing this report proves they’re biased?
Brain hurt.
To which I reply, cordially:
[The Jamil Hussein story] only backfired in the minds of those who continue to see the emperor as fully clothed.
Like I said, I don’t know CBS’s motives. I just know that their past behavior makes them suspect. And I find this unfortunate, because the citizenry needs to rely on unbiased (to the extent that’s possible) information in order to make informed choices and decisions.
[…]
And are you now seriously defending CBS because they were kind enough to tuck the propaganda away in a less visible place?
The question is, did they know that the footage came from al Qaeda? If so, why would they allow it to run at allâ€â€even on their websiteâ€â€without a disclaimer. And if not, why not?â€â€and doesn’t that [ignorance] tend to speak to both the unreliability of the war reporting coming out of Iraq and the propaganda capabiliities of our enemies?
Alphie seems also unable to fathom the difference between “publicizing propaganda” (as he claims the “Right” is doing by highlighting this story) and publicizing the fact that a major network news outlet has publicized propaganda as news—which I must insist are two entirely different things.
Nuance.
I thought CBS decided not to air this report.
Did they change their mind?
Can you imagine one of our major political parties being so far gone that it would cynically politicize this war and use it, in conjunction with their fellow travelers’ MSM story line?
Can you imagine mational politics so poisoned and partisan that during the investigation into the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor you send your former national security advisor to steal and destroy classified documents in an effort to cover up something that you fear to have made public?
I can’t imagine it, but then truth is always stranger than fiction.
Oops.
Can you imagine one of our major political parties being so far gone that it would cynically politicize this war and use it, in conjunction with their fellow travelers’ MSM story line to regain political power by subverting public support for the war effort?
alphie
They posted it on their web site. So they aired it in another way.
Why do you fools believe everything you read?
Sorry, alphie, I was editing the post while you were commenting.
As Defense Guy notes, they placed the video on their website, using as the rationale that it was too graphic for their nightly newscast.
And so much like internet ads aimed directly at engaged partisans, I suspect they knew the video would gain traction on the web. What I’m not sure they knew is 1) that the video was from al Qaeda, or 2) that somebody out there would know it came from al Qaeda, and have an interest in making that known, as Kazimi did.
DG,
CBS Evening News gets about 6 million viewers each night.
How many people go to their website?
I smell another “Jamail Hussein” style backfire here for the MSM haters.
CBS not airing this report proves they’re biased?
Brain hurt.
Why is no one paying me any attention? Unlike the AP, you people suck!
It only backfired in the minds of those who continue to see the emperor as fully clothed.
Like I said, I don’t know CBS’s motives. I just know that their past behavior makes them suspect. And I find this unfortunate, because the citizenry needs to rely on unbiased (to the extent that’s possible) information in order to make informed choices and decisions.
And are you now seriously defending CBS because they were kind enough to tuck the propaganda away in a less visible place?
The question is, did they know that the footage came from al Qaeda? If so, why would they allow it to run at all—even on their website—without a disclaimer. And if not, why not?—and doesn’t that tend to speak to both the unreliability of the war reporting coming out of Iraq and the propaganda capabiliities of our enemies?
Of course they knew where the footage came from. Which is the only reason they didn’t air it. They wanted it out there, but they can defend it by saying they just put it on their website.
It just sickens me.
I’m not “defending” the MSM.
I’m asking why the right is helping to publicize what they believe to be a piece of propaganda?
A story CBS wouldn’t even air?
Ratings, maybe?
alf,
as you know, we are criticizing CBS for not vetting their stories before diseminating them to the public… via the front or back door.
(did anyone else just hear Jim Morrison? tw:from67)
The correspondent should be fired.
Are you seriously suggesting that you cannot fathom the difference between publicizing what turns out to be propaganda and publicizing the fact that something someone is trying to pass off as news is, in fact, propaganda?
No wonder your brain hurts. It’s filled with jelly beans and broken Slinkies.
It’s only valuable as propaganda if it’s broadcast as “straight” news, alphie.
That’s the whole point here.
Iraqi stringers feed our news networks with their daily stories, including death totals. If Al Qaeda and other baddies want to create an impression of bias, they just feed video like this into that chain. Or, better (from their perspective), they just “report” that they saw ten beheaded bodies. Instant coverage, broadcast worldwide, no confirmation needed. When no one else can find them? “Oh, they must have been buried already.” So, instant rampant chaos.
They need a few real bombs here and there to get on the cameras, of course. But on an “off” day for them, a few reports of mass deaths in unconfirmable locations will do to keep the drumbeat going that chaos reigns and we should leave.
alphie,
You are truly a difficult person to understand. It is very hard to follow your thinking process.
Jeff’s reasoning process is very easy to understand—yours is not.
meant to say, “impression of CHAOS”
Gotta proofread…
kman,
I’m just saying this one is so obviously a loser going in.
CBS didn’t air this report.
Why go?
Not to mention Haifa Street is right outside the bunker known as the Green Zone. If we can’t control it…
Is it just raw footage of dead people? If so, is that really propaganda? Obviously CBS should provide the appropriate context (e.g. numbers killed on both sides, noting that the attack failed, etc.), but I fail to see how the mere fact that the footage was shot by an AQ thug makes it propaganda.
yeah!
Why would you guys bother to point out that CBS did release possibly damaging “propaganda†via means that could still disseminate our preferred lies, I mean potential truths and still provide adequate cover against any political blowback because they just didn’t broadcast it… all-the-while still supplying the real “good guys†a wonderful means of showing how evil your quagmire of an illegal war is really going? Why bring attention to that?
Moops —
The al Qaeda footage contained captions in the produced version. And of course, it is shot from al Qaeda’sperspective—and I’d venture that they have a vested interest in framing any carnage in a way that would help them recruit. Much of what is shown is suggestive (bloody walls, etc) rather than objective.
But then, you acknowledge that CBS should have provided context. Why not then go the next step and acknowledge that the fact they didn’t—when combined with the known agenda of those who shot the footage—is what makes this propaganda in the first place?
Because surely not allowing viewers to know that the footage is coming from al Qaeda’s perspective is an important oversight. Without it, casual observers who trust the media to be aiming for objectivity might believe themselves to be getting news from an unbiased source—something most people continue to believe al Qaeda most certainly is not.
If by just outside you meant three-quarters of a mile outside, agreed!
Comparing the map location of the event in question to Google Earth can be useful, from time to time.
I just don’t get your guys… How can you guys question CBS’ involvement in furthering Al Qaeda’s public relations & recruitment, I mean they have world renowned & respected journalists like Katie Couric… Katie F’n Couric! While you wingnuts have what, Brit Hume and Rush Limbaugh (they are so ugly) and the paltry excuse, completely unproven, that Al Qaeda produced this video or that CBS unquestioningly made it available for the world to see without providing any information on its source or validity. Talk about looking for an unjustified conspiracy behind every corner… Maybe your points would carry more weight if they were released by an institution that had the integrity and intelligence to hire someone with the unimpeccable journalistic vision like KATIE COURIC!!! to head up their news division.
I guess it’s okay for CBS to air enemy propaganda as straight-up news reporting, as long as they do it on the internet. After all, their site only gets about 3,378,000 million unique hits a week.
But of course, the reason that people started scrutinizing this report in the first place is because the reporter who “obtained” this propaganda video had started a whispering campaign to demand CBS give this enemy tripe even more exposure because she wasn’t content with it just being disseminated via the CBS web site.
And how many others will see it once it is on YouTube, sent via email, and disseminated in all the other ways videos are shared on the internet?
alfie, everytime you hit bottom (US growing opium in Afghanistan? Rummy personally delivering chemical weapons to Saddam?!) you continue to do a very admirable job of a mole on crack.
Keep digging.
What is it about lefty idiots that so many of them find it impossible to just come out and state their position frankly, without the use of mendacious and cowardly rhetorical smokescreen? “Ratings, maybe?” “If we can’t control it…” Come on, alphie, you walking bidet, just make your point.
My question is Phil,
Do you guys really think the “not destroyed” Malkin-Mosque, Jamail Hussein and now this non-aired CBS story is going to win any converts to the anti-MSM side?
Or is this just preachin’ to the choir?
Frankly, I could stand to see more photos of dead AQ-victims.
That way, when the US Military says these guys are “killers,” maybe the press corp won’t roll their eyes and huff like dusty accordions.
One of the reasons our nation’s electorate is so easily fooled by partisan caricatures of developments in Iraq is we, as a group, have been insulated from the pain felt by the terrorists’ victims in this war: thousands of muslim women, men, boys and girls.
If it’s because they’ve sworn to protect “us,” my question is who deputized the media? I want a recall.
I’m tired of these guys treating the “American Public” as though we’re whiney, fat, fragile toddlers. These guys seem to think they are our doting chaparones, chosen to cluck disapprobrium from their chaises along the side of the warm baby-pool they put us in, while we “babes” bob, spit and cry with our itchy water-wings on.
I mean like Geeez, come comrade Jeff not Nibra$ Qazami!
A Neocon lobbyist cum Shiite Islamist-Lite activist who, after having predicted that “Iraq could be pacified in less than 2 weeks†back in March 2003, became an advisor to Paul Bremer before fleeing the Green Zone like a rat a year later for the subsidized safety of “free-market†think-tankism in the US.
War is cool.
Specially when Infidel/Gentile American kids from Oklahoma get to do the fighting while you watch from the comfort of your Manhattan condo.
Two weeks ago, Nibras posted a fascinating article on his blog:http://talismangate.blogspot.com/
Among the many gems it contains, I find the following particularly beautiful:
“Staying the course actually brought forth dividends: all the vectors for an eventual victory [sic] look good â€Â
Perfectly shaped “victory vectors†indeed…I like the pseudo-scientific mathematical metaphor, with a zest of Neoclassical economic verbiage for good measure or shall I say ‘actionable metrics’- I mean “dividendsâ€Â!… WTF?
As they say in French: at least reading this isn’t as bad as being blind.
You see us searching for the truth as preaching to the choir, alphie? Says alot about where you are coming from, doesn’t it?
Two words “Fake But Accurate ”.
Someone please tell me that Alphie’s not so dense that he doesn’t realize that just because a webpage can be taken down that it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t PUBLISHED. Or that a website is now an extension of a network – i.e. no one would say that CNN didn’t report something because it appeared on their website rather than on their cable channel.
My personal opinion on it (and I have NO basis for throwing this out other than what my gut tells me) is that CBS didn’t fact-check it, or didn’t do a thorough job of verifying the source. And my gut tells me that Lara Logan knew that the video was terrorist propaganda. At the very least, the network and the reporter are both guilty of not knowing where their stuff came from, and not caring enough to find out. I’m entirely open to the possibility that the video came from someone who was independent of ISI, who supplied it both to ISI and to CBS, but I’m not holding my breath. Maybe part of the problem is a real lack of reporters who know enough about the Middle East to actually have the sources and channels – or the work ethic – to find out just where their material is coming from?
Once in a while I wonder why I can’t seem to watch/read mainstream media ‘news’ without an amaretto sour in my hand (light on the sour, please!). Stuff like this refreshes my memory.
He doesn’t need “truth”. He’s one of the “reality based”.
alf… the problem at the Malkin Mosque wasn’t that it was damaged… the problem was over the supposed 6 now cripy worshippers who supposedly had assisted combustion during prayers. That part has never been confirmed to my satisfaction.
Remember when Vietnamese monks set themselves ablaze in the late 60’s? How come the American anti war crowd doesn’t go Buddhist? Any asshole can hold a sign and chant 1,2,3,4 we don’t want your fucking war.
And my answer, alphie, is that you have presented a false dichotomy. Try again.
yeah!
Come on guys, I’ve won tons of converts and I can now go 5 whole minutes without using the word quagmire. That doesn’t count does it?
Alice H ,
Nailed it ! The easiest way for the media to vett any story is the internet . Throw it out on your website , see what sticks and THEN make a decision on whether to air it mainstream .
Sometimes it’s not how many but who .
Nobody appears to have the original video (alphabet city just has screen grabs) so it’s difficult to tell how much of the Logan report is the AQ vid. But it appears to be just about 15 seconds of footage of the dead soldiers. That ranting guy in the headscarf at the end doesn’t appear to be in the AQ video. It’s really only a a few shots of some dead soldiers, and the claim that CBS is running AQ propaganda seems a little strained.
Oh, yeah! I remember Logan’s Run.
Not to mention Haifa Street is right outside the bunker known as the Green Zone. If we can’t control it…
If a goalpost moves, and no one hears it, dose it still make a sound?
The MSM is , and has alwaws been linear . No discussion , no questioning , suck it up as WE dish it out . If you object WE may or may not publish your letter to the editor .
The ‘sphere ‘ , however is non-linear . If you want to throw out questionable information , you had damned well better be able to back it up FACTUALLY , or face the consequences . The MSM’s monopoly on information dissemenation as far as to who , and with what message , is being eroded by information for informations’ sake ,not for agendas’ sake . Guess I should thank AG…… on the other hand ….NAH !
The original video was available for download at Kazimi’s site (urls in the comments); don’t know if they are still there.
Okay, Moops. So it’s just a teensy weensy bit of al Qaeda propaganda footage used to flesh out an anti-war news piece.
No biggie.
I have to live with , and accept the MSM’s agenda …… why are they having such a hard time adjusting to , and dealing with MINE ?
alphie, in case you hadn’t noticed, is on the other side.
CBS News–America’s Most Trusted Source for Random Fictional Accounts of Things That We Wish Had Happened as Read by Katie Couric.
If you think about how illogical it is to attempt to be a serious news organization (ok–even I chuckled over that) with Couric doing the reading, your head will literally begin to vibrate like in that classic flick “Scanners.”
And lest I forget, alphie, you are an idiot.
It seems to me that the war in Iraq has become such a disaster that you are attacking the messenger – in this case the media. I don’t have much faith in the media after watching them cheerlead us into Iraq, and I’m sure that they have some sloppy reporting and poor sources in Iraq, but that is the nature of a war zone. There are a lot of people being killed, a lot of people and things being blown up and not much real progress to report. The idea seems to be that if you can find something wrong with one or two stories, then everything reported in Iraq is suspect and can be ignored. I think it is wishful thinking.
Why does it seem to you that the war in Iraq is a disaster, steve?
Oh, Pablo–stevie just wants to leave and the consequences be damned. Because things can;t possibly be worse than they are now. Right, stevie?
Everything will work itself out after the general regional war that we will have to shoot our way into (on which of six or seven potential sides, we’ll work out later) when a Democrat is President, don’t you know. Because it will still all be Bush’s fault.
Easy, Pablo. You’ll make his head explode.
It nearly happened once already when he was younger and tried to come to grips with kaleidoscopic temporality of The Terminator.
Luckily, a buddy of his was able to find Sixteen Candles on Showtime just in time to save him from having to break out the squeegee and the wet mop.
Pablo,
It has been almost 4 years. We just had to send in more troops. Troops are being killed at high rates. Thousands of civilians continue to be caught in the crossfire. It is breaking up into factions (whether or not you want to accept that as a civil war). The government of Iraq is in chaos. It would be hard to point to a single objective thing that has improved since the invasion. It is costing the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars and there isn’t really anything substantial to show for it. There is no easy way out of it, no more troops to draw from for further “surges” and no clear strategy has been articulated that I am aware of for either victory or some sort of compromise.
Jeff,
Was that directed at me? As usual, I don’t get it. I did enjoy both the Terminator and Sixteen Candles when they were first shown, though.
So fucking what.
C’est la guerre.
You’ve gotta be shitting me! We’ve never lost troops at a lower rate in the history of the United States!
Instead of in plastic shredders.
It always was in factions, dumbass.
It’s the first government they’ve had in 50 years, dumbass.
The Iraqi economy, dumbass.
Subtract that from what it cost to maintain the no-fly-zones, sanctions and the cost of permanently stationing troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia permanently.
I thought you were in favor of just quitting and leaving?
Thanks, Bill Clinton!
What part of Clear, Hold and Build did you miss? The Clear part? Or the Build part?
With whom would we compromise with if we wanted too?
Dumbass.
No.
And you would still be in for hundreds of billions of dollars.
I was asked why I thought it was a disaster. I am in favor of pulling the troops.
That sounds like nothing more than an empty slogan. Anyone can think of one. How about “whip ‘em, strangle ‘em, free ‘em”? Or “slam, bam and wham”?
Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, for starters. All have a stake in this.
The Bronx is closer to Manhattan. How are you doing there?
Oops. It was dealt with above.
Actually, compared to the casualites that we’ve inflicted on enemy combatants, it’s been small and diminishing.
Dan,
What do you consider a high rate of troop deaths?
Yeah! Steve, you go girl!
Preach on brother! We’ll just overlook the fact that total number of enemy deaths or captured are never reported as gleefully as when another American is slaughtered, nor how the number of successful missions accomplished (by either the Iraqi or US forces) is overlooked, the fact that more Iraqis have cleaner water, electricity, schools and non-government run newspapers (well over a 100 now) available then ever before, ignoring that the AP has used the prophet and Iraqi police captain Jamil Huessin (who may or may not exist) as sourcing for over 60 separate articles, including a large amount that have been proven to be less than what was reported or outright lies, the fact that the overwhelming embedded reporting is either freelanced or done by independents like Michael Yon for example and that the troops, the people actually over there, consistently say that the reporting they see is generally incorrect or does not accurately describe their day to day experiences. Given the fact that almost all reporters never venture beyond the green zone or their hotel rooms and rely upon what they call “stringers†to gather information or stories, we can safely assume that it is accurate, because once again the troops doing the fighting say it isn’t.
What kind of moron would volunteer to fight such an unjust war and expect that their opinion should count for anything back home? The only valuable service they offer us is their deaths and the image of flag-draped coffins to prove our point – whichever one is popular this week. We both know they are stupid, because they also overwhelming voted for President Bush both times he ran, which if nothing more screams uneducated, “IDIOT†southern to me.
Maybe if we spin the “truth†as we see it some more and declare that Iraq was safer when the sheeple-ist American soldiers weren’t there… our repetition will make us appear like we are united in our defeatism. We’ll also ignore that not one blogger on our side has gone over there to blog or see what is going on, that their opinions depend solely upon what the NYT says and if something positive is written, they blame “the corporate paid shills†obliviously working for the repthuglicans, even though for the most part they have published nothing positive on the front pages about the war, but only questioned each decision or action, while proclaiming it a “quagmire!†Because anything positive reported means another victory for the fascist in chief at home and that is something we cannot allow.
Some with diametrically opposed interests that are also in conflict with U.S. objectives and interests, stevie.
I’ll restate what I said a few threads back. Perhaps then you’ll check your silliness at the door.
Wishbone,
Isn’t that the definition of compromise?
Compromising your principles is why you lefties can NEVER be trusted with the levers of power.
Just to remind: We sided with Stalin in World War II. I assume that was a compromise of our principles, correct?
(Off to see Ladysmith Black Mambazo)
yeah!
Silly right wing puppet, we don’t need facts, just give us more American bodies for us to lament over the span it takes to say Quagmire! That’s our proof!
Now let me or Stevie ask yet another question to dodge these fascist questions of yours and pretend we are making points. That is before we bail out without once having answered anything or providing proof. We don’t need proof, we have the Congress and non-bindingly agree, IRAQ is BAD!!!!
SEE????
What form would that compromise take, steve? Trade Syria Lebanon for Iraq? Iran a nuke for same? al-Sadr a free reign to construct his vision of perfection in Southern Iraq? The Turks incursion rights against the Kurds? Ditto for the Kurds against Turkey?
And just how might these steps affect everyone else? Israel, the Saudis, the small gulf states, your average Lebanese, Egyptian democrats, Musharraf, NATO, Taliban recruitment for Afghanstan. Adults see connections, stevie. You see only your hatred for Dubya. Grow up.
Compromise is NOT always a positive outcome.
How very 1987 of you
On propaganda: The internet has thrown a huge wrench into the traditional relationship (if ever there was one) between static, straight reporting of facts on the ground and the dynamic of public discourse and opinion. I used to think of the two as oil and vinegar: not opposite forces, but unassailable silos, and the interaction between media and the public usually mellowed out over time and introspection.
Not any more. Now, the internet can be used as a tool for any person or entity that wants to send out an immediate volley triggering pure gut reaction. There appears to be none of the old-fashioned vetting, because that’s no longer necessary. Nobody controls or regulates the content.
So that’s my weak defense of CBS. In an internet-based war, maybe they were just trying to navigate the battlefield.
We ALL regulate the content .
From the comment by “Annie”
Why is it that proggs are so heavily into projection.
Is it a genuine mental disorder (perhaps as a result of all the truthiness), or a clever rhetorical ploy?
Stevexx, why do you persist in asking all the same questions, making all the same assertations you always do, even though they have been addressed a hundred times in a hundred different ways here.
You are just boring.
At least Alphie is entertaining, in a balloon fence kinda way.
Gray,
I suggest you save those excellent responses to steve. You could conserve valuable minutes of your life just pasteing the same responses to his repetitive comments.
I think we’re talking about different goals here.
The people who think the Iraq War is going well don’t share the same goals as a majority of Americans…
Thank goodness for democracy.
I look at it as a natural consequence of the MSM reportorial mindset. I’d even go as far as to guess that they’re actively seeking out these “unofficial” sources, since god knows they can’t trust the Military/Industrial Complex to be honest about what they’re doing and what the current situation is!
(Hint: they could, actually. It’s the military’s duty (which they’re generally very big on) to be honest about such things, operational security allowing. But the reporters won’t believe that.)
What goals would those be, alphie?
Episode Number 214 of “This Should Be Good.”
I think steve needs to hear B Moe’s two fundamental rules of foreign relations:
1) You can’t have unilateral negotiations.
2) You can have a unilateral ass-whuppin’.
He probably won’t understand this either, but it is worth a shot.
Bill D. Cat: When was the last time you personally caused content to be removed from the internet, before it was archived? Control is control, my friend. It’s a big word with bigger implications. The mainstream media is way over its head here. They are virtually irrelevant, and that’s kind of a shame.
Goals, wishbone?
Pretty simple:
Our military should only fight bad guys.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands dead, and we can’t say with any certainty whether a single one of them was a threat to America.
Time to put our armed forces away for another 30 years while we relearn that very simple lesson.
</blockquote>Tens or even hundreds of thousands dead, and we can’t say with any certainty whether a single one of them was a threat to America.<blockquote>
A. I call bullshit on your numbers.
B. I can think of four off the bat to refute your idiotic second point–Saddam, his boys, and Zarqawi.
C. Did a Marine steal your girlfriend (or boyfriend) at some point? Because you have a serious hate jones going for the military.
I’d ask you to define bad guy, but since you’ll just balther about school vouchers, I’ll withold that request.
Uh, no alphie. You can’t say with any certainy. Which, given that level of ignorance, most of us here remain mystified as to why you persist.
Never , to be honest I wouldn’t know how . Nor do I have an agenda to necessitate such actions .
I can. And I will, douchenozzle.
But I guess in your little leftist world al-Zarkari wasn’t a “bad guy”.
Tell that to Nick Berg.
Really? 30 years they were put away? I guess my service in the Gulf while the US was fighting the Iranian navy and Iraq during Desert Storm was just a figment of my imagination, then.
I believe it is you, my retarded little imp, that needs to learn a lesson or two…
Someone SOOoooo needs to bitch slap your stupid, idiotic ass…
alphie: I’ll bet you had to repeat third grade twice. Right?
Time to put our armed forces away for another 30 years while we relearn that very simple lesson.
It’s time we borrowed the Zionist Mind Ray, so that we can read the minds of “insurgents” and discover whether they’re blowing up children in marketplaces for a good cause. And if not we’ll deploy the Electronic Bees of Peace, which will target only the Bad Guys, and the Bees will inject them with the Poison of Love, making their small hearts grow three sizes that day, and they’ll lay down their weapons, singing, “Fah who for-aze! Dah who dor-aze! Welcome Christmas, come this way!”
(Jim Treacher is way better at this than I am.)
We have a culture of true-believers who stand in line for the chance to blow themselves up in a crowd of children, and alphie isn’t sure if they are bad guys and stevexx wants to compromise with them.
Unbelievable.
Aaah, the collective punishment crowd chimes in.
All Muslims are alike?
All Muslims are terrorists?
Not really an American ideology, is it?
That’s why we’re calling it quits.
Your pathetic.
May be the reason YOU and your ilk are calling it quits… not me and mine, princess.
Of course what would I expect from a coward… and the cowards he follows?
ooops…
“You’re” pathetic.
(I hate it when I do that….)
No.
No. But will you admit the ones that blow their fucking selves up are?
I know its been said before, but how can anyone be this damn thick?
If killing alone is a virtue, Dew…
Then our prisons are full of heroes.
Targeting matters.
alphie, are you yet again trying to blame our (well, maybe not yours) military for civilians murdered by your oh-so-heroic insurgency?
I repeat my instructions from earlier this week: go do something painful, crippling and non-fatal to yourself.
Oh please, spare me the sanctimonious drivel…
If the US Military was not concerned with targeting, Iraq as a whole would have an altitude deviation of about a meter…. and the equivalent population of Sunray, Texas.
Our forces in Iraq often put themselves in harms way to make sure of their targets. The only ones indiscriminantly killing Iraqis are the terrorists.
But I guess they aren’t the “bad guys”, huh?
Only the peeps with the stars and stripes on their shoulders are evil… in your eyes, anyway.
I don’t go that far. But I asked this before and never got an answer. Who are the bad guys, in my neighborhood? Who are the threats, and how shall I know them?
I don’t think any discussion of principles would be complete without bringing our alliance with Stalin into it.
After all in this age where everything is so relative, we can connect the dots back to Stalin and see the blood on our dirty hands.
I believe this is from somone named Robert Nisbet
“Somehow in Roosevelt’s vision all the ugly [of Soviet brutality] was squeezed out and what was left was a system in Russia not extremely different from his own New Deal….the Soviet Union, with all warts conceded in advance, was still constitutionally pledged to its people to provide jobs, medical care, and welfare very much on the order of his own New Deal….There was also the constitutional pledge to build a classless society….the Soviet Union was forward-looking, progressive in thrust.” Stalin and the Soviets, in other words, were just like us, only a bit more uncouth.
In Roosevelt’s mind, the enemy of peace and order in the postwar era wouldn’t be Soviet Communism, but the imperialism and colonialism of the European empires, particularly Great Britain’s. This was the threat to a future of Soviet-American “democracy.”
Sounds like today
well, that was appropos of nothing.
You won’t, Cynn.
Because you and Alphie and SteveXXeXeX have your heads buried firmly in the sand about what the true threats to our country may be.
I doubt that even when they come to lop your head off, you’ll know who or what the “threats” are.
Kinda one of those, “if you have to ask the question” situations….
You are the collective punishment crowd:
Progressive taxes, gun control, anti-smoking, airbags, anti-transfats–all liberal initiatives and all to curb the many for the actions of a few.
In that the Mussulman adopts the customs he is as indistinguishable from another Mussulman as one herring from another.
In that he rejects the teaching and joins the general company of man he is not.
Certainly there are enough to bring calumny on all.
Consider that there are far more Mussulmen who favor terrorism than there are Americans who favor our war and you’ll know who the war-like and unpeaceful nation is.
It’s the most profoundly American of all ideologies:
to eschew your old blood lusts and libels of your wretched old world and join the general company of men. In working for your own benefit, you benefit all.
It’s a surge, baby….
yeah, you stooge, the evil ones are at the arrival gate. Nobody’s going to lop off my head, moron, because I can see him or her coming. I have asked the question of you all innumerable times, who do we look for and how do we see them coming? Crickets; the deafening sound of sputtering inaction plus righty rage equals nothing.
Put away the bottle cynn, you are making a fool of yourself.
Cynn,
A good place to practice up would be a examination of CAIR.
Look for demands of censorship, defense of un-American behaviour, rationalization of islamic rage, threats against Americans who have practiced American liberty, excertion of pressure for acceptance of religious tolerance given to no other institution.
When you are able to devine these actions as harmfull to our society, you will be on the road to finding the answer.
… And how could you possibly know that? But I’ll go; that’s cute and dismissive!
What you look for are the ones who will put up a loudspeaker for the muezzin call in a minority muslim neighborhood.
What you look for are the ones who won’t publish funny pictures of Mohammed out of ‘sensitivity’.
What you look for are the ones who start calls to prayer and switching seats before the airplane takes off.
What you look for are the ones who will tell you listening you a call from Panjsher to Detroit is ‘domestic spying’.
What you look for are the ones who refuse to lift the veil of the hijab.
What you look for are the ones who defend the ones who refuse to lift the veil of the hijab.
What you look for are the ones who are sure we are losing when we confront the terrorists.
See them coming?!
It’s too late, they’re here. All we can do now is expell their ideas if not their persons.
You want this to degenerate into a name-calling contest?
I was in the Navy, Cynn… I’m pretty sure I could kick your ass verbally on my worst (Hong Kong Hangover) day. So kindly hug my left nad.
I wonder if Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg felt the same way? I’m pretty sure they felt they had it all figured out, too.
Easy, Cynn. The ones parroting your Democrat talking points are the terrorists.
See? Spotted ‘em in one easy step. Dontcha feel better now?
As opposed to the deafining squeal heard all through Washington Saturday as lefties cheered and chanted, hippies got stoned and maybe laid, and representitives of your movement ONCE AGAIN spit on a disabled veteran.
You and your kind equal less than nothing.